Mayflower District Court
#state-of-mayflower-v-nexuvz
This is the start of #state-of-mayflower-v-nexuvz channel.
DauuX 2024-11-07 11:00 a.m. CASE INFORMATION**
IN THE MAYFLOWER DISTRICT COURT FOR CLARK COUNTY
---
State of Mayflower v. nexuvz
Trial Type: Criminal
Judge Assigned: Judge SOURCED_V - Courtroom 104
Complaint Link: Attached below.
---
UPCOMING COURT DATES
```
11/7 - Filed with Clerk.
11/7 - D...
---
---
```
11/7 - Filed with Clerk.
11/7 - D...
Labels
CriminalDauuX 2024-11-07 11:01 a.m.@vinc @urinal cake
vinc 2024-11-07 02:20 p.m.@impactiii has appeared
vinc 2024-11-07 02:20 p.m.
hello
impactiii 2024-11-07 02:21 p.m.
Hello
urinal cake 2024-11-07 03:46 p.m.
i'm going to verbally request a recusal for obvious reasons @vinc
impactiii 2024-11-07 05:55 p.m.
Recusing who
impactiii 2024-11-07 05:55 p.m.@urinal cake
impactiiiurinal cake 2024-11-07 06:03 p.m.
the judge
urinal cake 2024-11-07 06:03 p.m.
sorry shouldve clarified
impactiii 2024-11-07 06:03 p.m.
What’s his conflict
impactiiiWhat’s his conflict
urinal cake 2024-11-07 06:47 p.m.
we have prior history
urinal cake 2024-11-07 06:47 p.m.
in which my actions toward him resulted in my removal from like
urinal cake 2024-11-07 06:48 p.m.
4 prominent ro states
urinal cake 2024-11-07 06:48 p.m.
sooo
urinal cakein which my actions toward him resulted in my removal from like
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:37 p.m.
So what’s his interest in this case
impactiiiSo what’s his interest in this case
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:39 p.m.
i reasonably fear that i will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of the bias of the judge
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:39 p.m.
Based on what
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:39 p.m.
are we really going to start with this now
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:40 p.m.
this is between myself and the judge!
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:40 p.m.
If you didn’t want me involved you shouldn’t have charged nexuvz
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:40 p.m.
that isn't at all what i said or insinuated or implied
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:40 p.m.
So there’s no issue with him being on this case because there’s no interest
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:41 p.m.
i disagree
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:41 p.m.
All based on conjecture and an irrational fear
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:41 p.m.
Speculation
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:41 p.m.
i'm not going to go into specifics for fear of releasing information his honor may not want released
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:41 p.m.
which is why i simply asked him verbally
urinal cakei'm not going to go into specifics for fear of releasing information his honor may not want released
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:41 p.m.
Based on what
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:41 p.m.
so if you could just let him respond, that'd be great!
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:43 p.m.
I don’t see an issue since he won’t elaborate @vinc
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:43 p.m.
I’m fine with you presiding
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:43 p.m.
then it's good thing your input isn't really needed
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:43 p.m.
If it clearly was an issue you’d go into detail
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:43 p.m.
i'm not going to and his honor knows why
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:43 p.m.
but thanks for your concern
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:43 p.m.
Playing mind games
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:44 p.m.
yep totally
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:44 p.m.
you got me
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:44 p.m.
playing mind games
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:44 p.m.
i've dropped that seed and request and will let him respond
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:44 p.m.
if he sees no need, then i won't
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:44 p.m.
i'm doing it for his sake
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:44 p.m.
Well you basically just randomly insulted the judge and told him he can’t discharge his duties impartially
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:44 p.m.
Which is based on speculation
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:44 p.m.
And an irrational fear
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:44 p.m.
As I’ve said
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:45 p.m.
thank you for your input
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:47 p.m.
You said he has a conflict of interest and won’t elaborate on his interest
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:47 p.m.
Do you see why this makes no sense
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:47 p.m.
nope
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:47 p.m.
because he understands
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:47 p.m.
and he is the only one that needs to consider the request
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:49 p.m.
I don’t know how anyone could possibly understand what you are saying
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:49 p.m.
You are withholding the reason from both of us
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:49 p.m.
because it is a personal matter between sourced and i
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:49 p.m.
he knows the reason perfectly well
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:49 p.m.
So if it’s that important you are obligated to tell me as well
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:49 p.m.
am i?
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:50 p.m.
If you’re going to accuse anybody of having an interest in this case it should be yourself
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:50 p.m.
here we go again
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:50 p.m.
Clearly you don’t like impartial judges
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:51 p.m.
No here we go again
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:51 p.m.
It’s simple
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:51 p.m.
If you don’t want this to happen
impactiii 2024-11-07 07:51 p.m.
Don’t bring the case
urinal cake 2024-11-07 07:51 p.m.
want what to happen?
vinc 2024-11-08 05:29 a.m.
oh right, ello is prosecution
vinc 2024-11-08 05:30 a.m.
sorry, i gave permissions for sado to speak in the channel at 4 am without realizing.
vinc 2024-11-08 05:30 a.m.
I'll be recusing myself as requested, @Kezzera @DauuX take notice and reassign. I'll elaborate myself if needed in personal dms
vinc 2024-11-08 05:31 a.m.
I have no specific interest in this case, I just have personal history with the prosecutor, so I'll be recusing. @impactiii
vincI have no specific interest in this case, I just have personal history with the prosecutor, so I'll be recusing. @impactiii
impactiii 2024-11-08 08:00 a.m.
So this isn’t really making much sense to me though
impactiii 2024-11-08 08:00 a.m.
If you were presiding over a case and Ello randomly appeared as counsel
impactiii 2024-11-08 08:00 a.m.
Would you then have to recuse mid-case?
impactiii 2024-11-08 08:00 a.m.
You said you have no interest in the merits of this case
impactiii 2024-11-08 08:00 a.m.
That’s enough for me
vinc 2024-11-08 08:01 a.m.
ello is probably the only person where a recusal is necessary considering that he doxxed me
impactiii 2024-11-08 08:01 a.m.
Oh wow
impactiii 2024-11-08 08:02 a.m.
So I feel like he should be the one recusing then
impactiii 2024-11-08 08:02 a.m.
That’s pretty insane
vinc 2024-11-08 08:03 a.m.
otherwise i mean if this was another prosecutor's case i would happily take it
vinc 2024-11-08 08:03 a.m.
obviously i will have prejudice against a guy who did me a great deal of concern regarding my irl reputation
vincobviously i will have prejudice against a guy who did me a great deal of concern regarding my irl reputation
impactiii 2024-11-08 09:40 a.m.
He should be the one recusing
impactiii 2024-11-08 09:40 a.m.
It’s not your job to accommodate him
DauuX 2024-11-08 12:19 p.m.
The case will be re-assigned soon
vincello is probably the only person where a recusal is necessary considering that he doxxed me
urinal cake 2024-11-08 06:02 p.m.
impactiii 2024-11-08 06:07 p.m.
Making light of the fact that you doxxed him
impactiii 2024-11-08 06:07 p.m.
I wouldn't say that's very funny
impactiiiI wouldn't say that's very funny
urinal cake 2024-11-08 06:23 p.m.
thanks i've heard that for 2 years
impactiii 2024-11-08 06:38 p.m.
It doesn’t just go away
impactiiiIt doesn’t just go away
urinal cake 2024-11-08 07:50 p.m.
really??
DauuX 2024-11-10 07:27 p.m.
Docketed to @Doogy as Judge SOURCED_V recused himself
cc@urinal cake @impactiii @nexus
cc
Doogy 2024-11-10 08:46 p.m.@nexus Would you like to waive your summons in order to appear voluntarily without need of a court ordered summons?
cc:@impactiii
cc:
Doogyimpactiii 2024-11-10 08:48 p.m.
Sure! As long as he still has to do a PC hearing
Doogy 2024-11-10 08:49 p.m.
Who?
Doogy
nexus 2024-11-10 10:12 p.m.
Rephrase this into simple English
DoogyWho?
impactiii 2024-11-11 12:42 a.m.
The State
impactiii 2024-11-11 12:42 a.m.
You make them do a PC hearing before a summons
impactiii 2024-11-11 12:42 a.m.
So make them do it even if he waives summons
nexusRephrase this into simple English
DauuX 2024-11-11 05:15 a.m.
Do you want us to write a paper order telling you to be here or will you just be here basically
Doogy 2024-11-12 07:21 p.m.
Probable cause has already been established by the court on review of the applicable affidavit.
Doogy 2024-11-12 07:21 p.m.
Do you waive your summons? @nexus
DoogyDo you waive your summons? @nexus
impactiii 2024-11-13 10:56 a.m.
Sure!
impactiii 2024-11-13 10:56 a.m.
Let’s proceed
Doogy 2024-11-13 01:35 p.m.
The Defendant has to state it.
DoogyThe Defendant has to state it.
impactiii 2024-11-13 01:49 p.m.
He can speak through me
impactiii 2024-11-13 01:49 p.m.
I am his counsel of choice
impactiii 2024-11-13 01:49 p.m.
This is a typical thing in the criminal justice system
impactiii 2024-11-13 01:49 p.m.
He is also present
impactiii 2024-11-13 01:50 p.m.
So no worries about denial of rights by virtue of him being in absentia
impactiii 2024-11-13 01:50 p.m.
We waive the procedural requirement of a summons
impactiiiHe can speak through me
Doogy 2024-11-13 03:43 p.m.
Okay. He was evidently unsure of what it meant so I wanted to confirm that you admonished him of the meaning of it, although the court already had, and for him to confirm that he waives it.
DoogyOkay. He was evidently unsure of what it meant so I wanted to confirm that you admonished him of the meaning of it, although the court already had, and for him to confirm that he w...
impactiii 2024-11-13 06:55 p.m.
I have a motion to lodge can we proceed
impactiii 2024-11-13 06:55 p.m.
I should clarify it's 3 motions in one
impactiii 2024-11-13 06:55 p.m.
Only 1 of which is interpretive
impactiii 2024-11-13 06:56 p.m.
And requires a scintilla of critical thinking in rendering a ruling
urinal cake 2024-11-13 07:57 p.m.
impactiii 2024-11-13 11:24 p.m.@Doogy
impactiii 2024-11-13 11:30 p.m.
He has to mentally prepare himself
impactiii 2024-11-13 11:30 p.m.
I would too
impactiii 2024-11-13 11:30 p.m.
I’d hate to be reading all the stuff I have
Doogy 2024-11-14 09:51 a.m.
We need to schedule for the arraignment first. The defendants presence will be required. Please choose a time within my availability found in my chamber information. We can conduct the arraignment in discord but I’d still rather everyone be actively present in the proceedings channel that way the arraignment only takes a matter of minutes rather than a longer indefinite period of time.
DoogyWe need to schedule for the arraignment first. The defendants presence will be required. Please choose a time within my availability found in my chamber information. We can conduct...
impactiii 2024-11-14 11:38 a.m.
Waive arraignment and entry of plea of not guilty
impactiii 2024-11-14 11:38 a.m.
Do you want it in writing
Doogy 2024-11-14 12:03 p.m.
Yes
Doogy 2024-11-14 12:23 p.m.
Okay.
Doogy 2024-11-14 12:24 p.m.
Pretrial has officially started upon the presence of the defendant post-summons and post-arraignment. Pretrial will end 12:30 p.m. or earlier by agreement of both parties.
At this time discovery is also officially commenced and will remain open until12:30 p.m. as well or otherwise sooner by agreement of both parties.
At this time any motions may be submitted as well as any evidence admitted into the record for the discovery period.
At this time discovery is also officially commenced and will remain open until
At this time any motions may be submitted as well as any evidence admitted into the record for the discovery period.
Doogy 2024-11-14 12:24 p.m.@impactiii @urinal cake
impactiii 2024-11-14 12:26 p.m.DEFENDANT’S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTIONS
CC:@Doogy @urinal cake
impactiii 2024-11-14 07:36 p.m.DEFENDANT NEXUVZ’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT ONE BASED ON FAILURE TO STATE AN OFFENSE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL VAGUENESS
CC:@Doogy @urinal cake
impactiii 2024-11-14 07:37 p.m.
Had to delete last one because it had my name on it
impactiii 2024-11-14 07:37 p.m.
apologies….
urinal cake 2024-11-14 09:04 p.m.
the classic sadoimpacto combo
urinal cake 2024-11-14 09:05 p.m.@Doogy can i have until like tuesday-ish to respond? i have finals and really need to get my act together over the weekend
urinal cake 2024-11-14 09:05 p.m.
also lots of call volume at my fire department that i need to respond to
Doogy 2024-11-14 09:21 p.m.
Sure. Tuesday will be the deadline for responses to those motions.
DoogySure. Tuesday will be the deadline for responses to those motions.
urinal cake 2024-11-14 09:29 p.m.
what time
urinal cake 2024-11-14 09:29 p.m.
like 11 pm est would be most ideal
Doogy 2024-11-14 09:37 p.m.
end of day
Doogy 2024-11-14 09:37 p.m.
ET
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-11-14 09:38 p.m.
Motions 2 and 3 in this will be automatic I just want it in writing
urinal cake 2024-11-14 09:47 p.m.
yeah i'll get that o u asap
urinal cake 2024-11-14 09:47 p.m.
to
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-11-14 10:29 p.m.
NOTICE OF ERROR: giant block of text in table of contents that isn't supposed to be there
Doogy 2024-11-14 10:40 p.m.@Deleted User added
Deleted User 2024-11-14 10:40 p.m.
Hello hello
Deleted User 2024-11-14 10:40 p.m.
I’m here to help speed up the response
Deleted UserI’m here to help speed up the response
impactiii 2024-11-14 11:30 p.m.
When would you have a response
impactiiiWhen would you have a response
Deleted User 2024-11-15 05:50 a.m.
Within the parameters the court set
urinal cake 2024-11-16 01:59 a.m.
people like this just suck the fun out of ro law
urinal cake 2024-11-16 01:59 a.m.
so disappointing
impactiii 2024-11-16 02:19 a.m.
This is fun for me
impactiii 2024-11-16 02:19 a.m.
Deleted User 2024-11-16 12:37 p.m.
Just FYI, we’re gonna file two separate responses to each motion instead of one collective. So you might see one get filed and then the next one a day or two later
impactiii 2024-11-16 01:15 p.m.
Fair
Deleted User 2024-11-16 02:51 p.m.
cc: @Doogy @impactiii
Deleted User 2024-11-16 02:51 p.m.
Courtesy link:
Deleted because I uploaded to my personal google drive instead of Roblox, will resend later(edited)
Deleted because I uploaded to my personal google drive instead of Roblox, will resend later(edited)
impactiiiDeleted User 2024-11-16 02:52 p.m.
Our response to the Motion to Dismiss can be expected Sunday or Monday
impactiii 2024-11-16 02:54 p.m.
"given the fact that Criminal Informations are merely supporting procedural documents intended to compliment the Affidavit of Probable Cause" What the hell does this even mean
Deleted User 2024-11-16 02:54 p.m.
Read the rest of the paragraph
Deleted User 2024-11-16 02:56 p.m.
We argue, as precedent supports, that Criminal Informations do not serve a purpose in determining one’s guilt, but rather support the information found within the AoPC
impactiii 2024-11-16 03:01 p.m.
No one said that the information establishes guilt. Do you think I would be here if that was it's purpose? And it's the other way around: the affidavit supports the information. The affidavit establishes probable cause for the charges in the information.
impactiii 2024-11-16 03:01 p.m.
I don't even think I need to respond to that, but I did it anyway. That was just a really uninformed (giving you the benefit of the doubt) thing to say
impactiii 2024-11-16 03:07 p.m.
"The State will lastly note for this court, that no such contestion of the language contained within
a Criminal Information has yet been raised within the Clark County District Court."
Wrong. Seestate-of-mayflower-v-ispilledmytacos
"Thisnovel (???) argument seeks to call into question nearly the entirety of State criminal filings, as the foundation
of our submissions are grounded on the underscored principles within this response""
Wrong again.
Cases where a motion to strike prejudicial surplusage was introduced:
- United States v. Bongiovanni, 19-CR-227 (JLS) (MJR) (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2022)
- United States v. Posner, 20-CR-162 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2022)
- United States v. Fishenko, 12 CV 626 (SJ) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2014)
- U.S. v. Rigas, 281 F. Supp. 2d 660 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (joint motion to strike prejudicial surplusage)
- United States v. Percoco, 16-CR-776 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2017)
- U.S. v. Kukic, 01 CR 416 (S10) (ILG) (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 19, 2002)
it goes on ad inifnitum...
Rule 7(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that "The court on motion of the defendant may strike surplusage from the indictment or information." Here, too, our rules allow the exact same remedy:
a Criminal Information has yet been raised within the Clark County District Court."
Wrong. See
"This
of our submissions are grounded on the underscored principles within this response""
Wrong again.
Cases where a motion to strike prejudicial surplusage was introduced:
- United States v. Bongiovanni, 19-CR-227 (JLS) (MJR) (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 22, 2022)
- United States v. Posner, 20-CR-162 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2022)
- United States v. Fishenko, 12 CV 626 (SJ) (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 25, 2014)
- U.S. v. Rigas, 281 F. Supp. 2d 660 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (joint motion to strike prejudicial surplusage)
- United States v. Percoco, 16-CR-776 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2017)
- U.S. v. Kukic, 01 CR 416 (S10) (ILG) (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 19, 2002)
it goes on ad inifnitum...
Rule 7(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that "The court on motion of the defendant may strike surplusage from the indictment or information." Here, too, our rules allow the exact same remedy:
"Each offense must be typed and displayed in its own count followed by a description of the offense. No information entered into the court record shall contain surplusage." Mayfl. R. Crim P. 3(2)(6)
impactiii 2024-11-16 03:07 p.m.
Actually, our rules are much more extensive
impactiii 2024-11-16 03:07 p.m.
It allows the court to do it on it's own
Deleted User 2024-11-16 03:09 p.m.
I’m not going to re-hash the arguments presented. The affidavit and the information are complimentary in nature, and separate in procedural presentation. If you disagree with our response file an appropriate document. Processing to insult the intelligence of the State is both in contravention to good decorum, but calls in to question potential contraventions of the Code of Ethics.
impactiii 2024-11-16 03:10 p.m.
Objection, ragebait. No one insulted your intelligence
Deleted User 2024-11-16 03:10 p.m.
SoM. be Ispilled has categorical differences in the issues raised between the two cases. I don't appreciate this law-fare tactic of filling the court record with your statements to take awaya from the filings in question. If you have a record to make then file it accordingly.
Deleted User 2024-11-16 03:11 p.m.
that was just a really uninformed (giving you the benefit of the doubt) thing to say
Deleted User 2024-11-16 03:12 p.m.
The Federal cases you reference, again, do not conform the verbiage utilized in our own filing, and if you read my response. We delineate the purpose behind such language, which again is supported by cases such as U.S. v. Colon-Ledee where it is deemed permissible
impactiii 2024-11-16 03:13 p.m.
Do you think nearly every fact articulated in each case need to be point-on-point mirror to be applicable or have any weight as case law
impactiii 2024-11-16 03:13 p.m.
If you didn't want me to contest your filings, you (1) shouldn't have responded, and (2) shouldn't have filed this case
impactiii 2024-11-16 03:13 p.m.
Your fault
Deleted User 2024-11-16 03:14 p.m.
That wasn't my argument, but I'll raise your question with this; your presumption is that the state cannot contain any information which you purport to be 'prejudicial' and yet the very ROP you cite allow for the State to describe the events related to the case. Not to mention, the State is obligated to describe the actions alleged to be committed which suffices the statutory requirements.
Deleted User 2024-11-16 03:15 p.m.
Your entire motion predicates on a non-issue, because the state has a statutory duty to include the language you don't like.
impactiii 2024-11-16 03:15 p.m. 
impactiii 2024-11-16 03:15 p.m.
Would you say this is insufficient
Deleted User 2024-11-16 03:15 p.m.
If you concede that the Criminal Information is not dependent on one's guilt, then your entire motion is frivolous. The court
Deleted User 2024-11-16 03:15 p.m.
requires, preocedurally, the submission of these documents.
impactiiiClick to see attachment.
Deleted User 2024-11-16 03:17 p.m.
The verbiage chosen by one prosecutor will differentiate between the next. Unless you can articulate a particular violation of a given staturoy or constitutional limitation on the language incorporated in a CI, then your argument is mute. U.S. v. Colon-Ledee clearly held that background information in support of the alleged offenses is not surplusage.
Deleted User 2024-11-16 03:17 p.m.
statutory*
impactiii 2024-11-16 03:17 p.m.
moot*
Deleted User 2024-11-16 03:18 p.m.
I congratulate you on your english comprehension
impactiii 2024-11-16 03:19 p.m.
This is so funny
impactiii 2024-11-16 03:19 p.m.
You just use buzzwords
impactiii 2024-11-16 03:20 p.m.
Reminds me of the reddit armchair lawyers
Deleted User 2024-11-16 03:20 p.m.
Am I to comment on your practice of inflammatory statements to appear an authority on case law? This is literally Roblox and you seek out any opportunity to pass off a tone of superiority.
urinal cake 2024-11-16 04:54 p.m.
the 2nd circuit recognized that including detailed allegations in an indictment is permissible when such details are relevant to the charges. these details help establish the context and intent of the alleged criminal conduct, which is important for the court's understanding of the case (united states v. scarpa, 913 f.2d 993 (2d cir. 1990))
urinal cake 2024-11-16 04:56 p.m.
and united states v. depalma, 461 f. supp. 778 (s.d.n.y. 1978) supports the idea that detailed descriptions in the indictment are necessary to provide clarity on the nature of the offense and the defendant's intent. such details aren't considered surplusage because they contribute to a more detailed understanding of the charges
urinal cake 2024-11-16 04:58 p.m.
united states v. chas. pfizer & co. also recognized that if evidence of an allegation is admissible and relevant to the charge, then regardless of how prejudicial the language is, it may not be stricken
urinal cake 2024-11-16 04:58 p.m.
the government reserves the right to broadly allege that which it intends to prove and that which, under applicable principles of law it may prove
Deleted Usercc: @Doogy @impactiii
Deleted User 2024-11-16 04:59 p.m.
For which I’ll refer Mr. Sado back to this
urinal cakethe government reserves the right to broadly allege that which it intends to prove and that which, under applicable principles of law it may prove
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:03 p.m.
Imaginary quotes
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:04 p.m.
It wasn’t a quote, it was a factual statement
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:05 p.m.
I'd like to see the quotes or I have no idea what he is talking about
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:05 p.m.
You expect me to take that at face value
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:06 p.m.
We expect you to have reading comprehension skills, the citations are there. Our motion includes ample amounts of precedent and direct quotes. You clearly didn’t read it, and had a problem with it, so we gave you 4 more cases to get it through your head
urinal cakeand united states v. depalma, 461 f. supp. 778 (s.d.n.y. 1978) supports the idea that detailed descriptions in the indictment are necessary to provide clarity on the nature of the ...
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:07 p.m.
In this case, they literally struck surplusage from the indictment. They did the opposite of what you said. United States v. DePalma, 461 F. Supp. 778 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) (striking "and other activities" from charging paragraph of indictment, as the broad allegation "adds nothing to the charges, gives the defendant no further information with respect to them, and creates the danger that the prosecutor at trial may impermissibly enlarge the charges contained in the [racketeering] Indictment returned by the grand jury.")
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:07 p.m.
Lmao
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:07 p.m.
I'm done bro
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:07 p.m.
You guys
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:07 p.m.
You got me good!
urinal cake 2024-11-16 07:07 p.m.
so did college admissions
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:08 p.m.
What's that supposed to mean
urinal cake 2024-11-16 07:08 p.m.
oh nothing
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:09 p.m.
Making fun of me for going to a top 25 school is crazy work
impactiiiIn this case, they literally struck surplusage from the indictment. They did the opposite of what you said. United States v. DePalma, 461 F. Supp. 778 (S.D.N.Y. 1978) (striking "an...
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:09 p.m.
The case helps our position, because the courts only issue were adjectives NOT related to the alleged offenses. They were accurately considered surplusage, whereas our verbiage is directed.
Deleted UserThe case helps our position, because the courts only issue were adjectives NOT related to the alleged offenses. They were accurately considered surplusage, whereas our verbiage is ...
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:10 p.m.
Then cite cases that help you
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:10 p.m.
Instead of "the indictment doesn't determine guilt"
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:10 p.m.
We all know that! That's why I'm here
impactiiiMaking fun of me for going to a top 25 school is crazy work
urinal cake 2024-11-16 07:10 p.m. 
impactiiiThen cite cases that help you
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:10 p.m.
It does… that case better explains instances of actual surplus, something you haven’t grasped yet.
impactiiiMaking fun of me for going to a top 25 school is crazy work
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:11 p.m.
Basing your personality off of the college you go to is crazy
urinal cakeClick to see attachment.
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:11 p.m.
I don't even see how this matters. What is this ragebait lmfao. I've never once personally attacked this guy
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:11 p.m.
I've only attacked him for what he's done here
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:11 p.m.
And I only brought up my college because he brought it up
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:11 p.m.
I don’t even understand why any of this mayyers
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:11 p.m.
Matters
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:11 p.m.
Thank you
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:11 p.m.
It’s not relevant
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:11 p.m.
I don't either
urinal cake 2024-11-16 07:11 p.m.
you are right.
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:12 p.m.
You continued the conversation
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:12 p.m.
You’re both showing your age
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:12 p.m.
It’s not necessary
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:12 p.m.
Oh brother
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:12 p.m.
You're so old. So wise.
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:13 p.m.
The entire past few hours have been nothing but frivolous litigation outside the presence of the court, because you can’t let your filings speak for yours position
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:14 p.m.
It’s disingenuous to act this way and then act as if you hold a moral superiority in any argument you make
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:16 p.m.
I appreciate the 1v2 (been in a 1v5 against you guys already, and won, so I don't care) but I've already let my filings speak for my positions. Still waiting on your second response
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:16 p.m.
All the time you've spent talking you could've spent writing
impactiiiAll the time you've spent talking you could've spent writing
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:17 p.m.
Pot calling the kettle black. You’re a walking hypocrisy
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:17 p.m.
What a hostile group of individuals this DOJ is @Doogy
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:18 p.m.
I hope you can get your response to me soon!
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:18 p.m.
We’ve quite literally just been responding to you.
urinal cake 2024-11-16 07:22 p.m.
Moreover, "if evidence of the allegation is admissible and relevant to the charge, then regardless of how prejudicial the language is, it may not be stricken." United States v. DePalma, 461 F. Supp. 778, 797 (SDNY 1978); accord Scarpa, 913 F.2d at 56.
urinal cake 2024-11-16 07:22 p.m.
just to sprinkle that on
urinal cake 2024-11-16 07:22 p.m.
nothing of what we alleged in the information is not substantiated by evidence
urinal cake 2024-11-16 07:23 p.m.
even if you think it creates a "prejudicial portrayal," what we said is true and supported by the clip.
urinal cake 2024-11-16 07:23 p.m.
along with the aopc
urinal cakeMoreover, "if evidence of the allegation is admissible and relevant to the charge, then regardless of how prejudicial the language is, it may not be stricken." United States v. DeP...
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:24 p.m.
That seems to be the disputed question no
urinal cake 2024-11-16 07:25 p.m.
Assuming that all of defendants Weisman's and Pacella's allegations are true, prejudice may arise from the inclusion in the Indictment of the words "skimming" and "looting". However, if evidence of the allegation is admissible and relevant to the charge, then regardless of how prejudicial the language is, it may not be stricken. United States v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., supra.
urinal cake 2024-11-16 07:25 p.m.
well theres a nice supreme court case for you
urinal cake 2024-11-16 07:25 p.m.
pretty binding if you add me
urinal cake 2024-11-16 07:25 p.m.
not a whole lot to dispute!
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:25 p.m.
If the defense would just read my motion, all of these considerations were addressed
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:25 p.m.
No point in arguing anymore
urinal cake 2024-11-16 07:26 p.m.
kk
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:26 p.m.
That's because the test for striking is two part
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:26 p.m.
(1) is it relevant
(2) is it prejudicial
(2) is it prejudicial
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:26 p.m.
So if it's relevant, it can't be struck
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:27 p.m.
If you had basic reading comprehension you could see I addressed that in my motion
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:27 p.m.
Response*
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:27 p.m.
Thank you. How old are you again? I forgot how old you are. He's so old. He's so much smarter than me.
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:27 p.m.
Because he's older than me.
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:27 p.m.
Sorry king.
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:28 p.m.
Go read and get back to me. One liners only work in comedy
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:28 p.m.
You’ve spent all day arguing when you could’ve just submitted a response to filing
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:28 p.m.
To my
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:28 p.m.
Reply* and I'm not going to because my two main motions will be granted
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:29 p.m.
Work on that second response
Deleted User 2024-11-16 07:30 p.m.
Pride cometh before the fall. It’s incredible how distasteful you can be towards anybody who happens to disagree with your Lego law opinions
impactiii 2024-11-16 07:30 p.m.
Ironic
Deleted User 2024-11-17 08:03 p.m.
Second response should be in tomorrow mid-day
Deleted User 2024-11-17 08:03 p.m.@Doogy
impactiii 2024-11-18 02:58 a.m.NEXUVZ'S MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT
CC:@Doogy @Deleted User @urinal cake
Deleted User 2024-11-18 06:34 a.m.
You can’t challenge settled law as the basis for dismissal..
urinal cake 2024-11-18 07:29 a.m.
bro wants a jury trial LOL
Deleted User 2024-11-18 07:30 a.m.
And he wrote 15 pages insulting the courts intelligence
urinal cake 2024-11-18 07:31 a.m.
thats so funny
impactiii 2024-11-18 10:08 a.m.
I don’t want a jury trial; we need a trial trial
impactiii 2024-11-18 10:08 a.m.
Thank you
impactiiiDeleted User 2024-11-18 10:47 a.m.
Do we get an extended deadline for this motion? @Doogy
impactiii 2024-11-18 11:06 a.m.
“We may wince when we must say that we apply the law, but not justice. Nevertheless, it is better so; for the society which would trade in the law for what its members called justice would not long remain a society.”
Deleted User 2024-11-18 11:06 a.m.
This ain’t a high school philosophy class
Deleted User 2024-11-18 11:06 a.m.
This is Roblox
Doogy 2024-11-18 11:50 a.m.
I’ve just barely skimmed it but it looks like that motion may contain a lot of unnecessary surplusage. It’s got a whole history lesson in there
Deleted UserDo we get an extended deadline for this motion? @Doogy
Doogy 2024-11-18 11:51 a.m.
And yes
DoogyI’ve just barely skimmed it but it looks like that motion may contain a lot of unnecessary surplusage. It’s got a whole history lesson in there
Deleted User 2024-11-18 11:51 a.m.
exactly
Deleted User 2024-11-18 11:51 a.m.
I'm just gonna note that they don't cite a single aspect of the mayflower constitution
DoogyAnd yes
Deleted User 2024-11-18 11:51 a.m.
Would Friday work?
Deleted User 2024-11-18 11:51 a.m.
I'll have our response to the second motion submitted in about an hour
Doogy 2024-11-18 11:52 a.m.
The other responses are expected by tomorrow but for that one by Friday should suffice to give an additional 48 hours of pretrial after.
DoogyThe other responses are expected by tomorrow but for that one by Friday should suffice to give an additional 48 hours of pretrial after.
Deleted User 2024-11-18 11:52 a.m.
Yeah I was guessing that Friday was 48 hours, so that's good
DoogyThe other responses are expected by tomorrow but for that one by Friday should suffice to give an additional 48 hours of pretrial after.
Deleted User 2024-11-18 11:52 a.m.
Just for my information, have you had a chance to review our first response?
DoogyI’ve just barely skimmed it but it looks like that motion may contain a lot of unnecessary surplusage. It’s got a whole history lesson in there
impactiii 2024-11-18 12:17 p.m.
Necessary to understand how important it is and why you should not deny the motion
impactiii 2024-11-18 12:17 p.m.
Also our constitution guarantees due process
Deleted User 2024-11-18 12:17 p.m.
but not jury trials 
impactiii 2024-11-18 12:17 p.m.
A jury of your peers is part of due process
impactiii 2024-11-18 12:17 p.m.
Nice try
Deleted User 2024-11-18 12:17 p.m.
it is explicitly left out of the Mayflower Constitution
Deleted User 2024-11-18 12:17 p.m.
reminder number 6,578, this is Roblox
Deleted User 2024-11-18 12:18 p.m.
and the authors of our constitution knew that
Deleted Userit is explicitly left out of the Mayflower Constitution
impactiii 2024-11-18 12:18 p.m.
It wouldn’t matter. Then the Sixth Amendment takes precedence. Where federal and state law conflict (or omit), supremacy clause takes over
impactiii 2024-11-18 12:18 p.m.
Also, incorporation doctrine
impactiii 2024-11-18 12:18 p.m.
It wouldn’t even matter if our state barred jury trials constitutionally
impactiii 2024-11-18 12:19 p.m.
You have to argue up the unscalable wall of the 14th Amendment
Deleted User 2024-11-18 12:20 p.m.
Or, orrrrrr, and I know this is gonna sound crazy; This may or may not be a lego game with reasonable constraints built in to its constitution, because the people who came before you knew that we could not logistically handle jury trials
Deleted User 2024-11-18 12:21 p.m.
There are NO jury trials in all of mayflower precedent. You can't invalidate years of settled law.
Deleted UserThere are NO jury trials in all of mayflower precedent. You can't invalidate years of settled law.
impactiii 2024-11-18 12:24 p.m.
Seemingly ironic seeing as you wish to return us to a pre-civil war Barron v. Baltimore era of law. The 14th Amendment is absolute in what it says. And the phrasing “settled law” certainly works against you here, considering what I have just discussed at great length—the right to a trial by jury is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment’s due process clause and supersedes our state constitution. Also, see Firestone if you believe jury trials are entirely incompatible with Roblox. Don’t try to instruct me on “settled law” when what you have proposed is (1) not founded on the law and (2) contrary to the law.
Deleted User 2024-11-18 12:25 p.m.
you're still citing real world case law, and applying it to an exception in a lego game
Deleted User 2024-11-18 12:25 p.m.
You can't cite a single Mayflower case where a jury trial occured, and you can't name any part of our Constitution which enumerates the right thereof.
impactiii 2024-11-18 12:26 p.m.
I don’t need to cite Mayflower law. You’re using a pre-reconstruction argument when I demolish you on the issue of “settled law” each time. Your only argument would be to the “reasonableness” of a Roblox jury trial (see Firestone), but then again, that’s not law. That’s conjecture about what we can and can’t do.
Deleted User 2024-11-18 12:29 p.m.
This isn't a strict-realism group like Firestone, and Firestone has no relevance here
Deleted User 2024-11-18 12:29 p.m.
No one in our legal community, except for you, thinks a strict interpretation of every accepted legal principle IRL, should translate to a lego game
impactiiiDeleted User 2024-11-18 12:37 p.m.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L0RWm67bP-6IqR1eLEMYBLMDv-2jSeIL/view?usp=drive_link
cc:@Doogy
Courtesy link included
cc:
Courtesy link included
impactiii 2024-11-18 12:48 p.m.
Thank you
Deleted UserJust for my information, have you had a chance to review our first response?
Doogy 2024-11-18 01:10 p.m.
Nope
DoogyNope
Deleted User 2024-11-18 01:10 p.m.
Gotcha
Deleted Userhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1L0RWm67bP-6IqR1eLEMYBLMDv-2jSeIL/view?usp=drive_link cc: @Doogy Courtesy link included
impactiii 2024-11-18 01:21 p.m.
I’ll have a reply to this
Deleted User 2024-11-18 01:21 p.m.
Try not to write more than 10 pages impossible challenge
impactiii 2024-11-18 01:23 p.m.
Objection ragebait
Deleted User 2024-11-18 01:23 p.m.
Objection the defense counsel has no life
impactiii 2024-11-18 01:24 p.m.
How come you dropped out of law school
impactiii 2024-11-18 01:24 p.m.
I can see why, actually
impactiii 2024-11-18 01:25 p.m.
Sorry, shouldn’t have asked
Deleted User 2024-11-18 01:25 p.m.
To be a badass, see below:
Deleted User 2024-11-18 01:25 p.m.
You may now go continue being a waste of space
impactiii 2024-11-18 01:26 p.m.
minimum wage king
Deleted User 2024-11-18 01:26 p.m.
Actual contributing member to society who doesn’t write 25 pages for a Lego game
Deleted User 2024-11-18 01:26 p.m.
Minimum wage? I make 90K
impactiii 2024-11-18 01:27 p.m.
Pants on fire
Deleted User 2024-11-18 01:28 p.m.
Imagine being obsessed with someone’s real life career because you are insecure in a Lego game
Deleted User 2024-11-18 01:29 p.m.
Go write a thirty page motion about how mean we are at the DOJ
Deleted UserImagine being obsessed with someone’s real life career because you are insecure in a Lego game
impactiii 2024-11-18 01:29 p.m.
Ironic
Deleted User 2024-11-18 01:29 p.m.
Doogy 2024-11-18 05:38 p.m.
Just to clarify, I still haven't read any of the motions or responses and intend to do so for the first two probably sometime tomorrow.
Doogy 2024-11-18 05:39 p.m.
I would like to mention though, before we proceed, that I will not be accepting of any ad hominem or failure to maintain court decorum in the proceedings. Please keep things civil and please avoid posting gifs of any kind that aren't relevant to the case proceedings.
impactiiiminimum wage king
urinal cake 2024-11-18 10:17 p.m.
dude you go to some shitty college in the middle of nowhere
urinal cake 2024-11-18 10:17 p.m.
get off your high horse
urinal cake 2024-11-18 10:17 p.m.
call firefighters "minimum wage kings" when your fridge catches on fire for how often you use it
urinal cake 2024-11-18 10:17 p.m.
see what happens
urinal cakedude you go to some shitty college in the middle of nowhere
impactiii 2024-11-18 10:18 p.m.@Doogy 
urinal cake 2024-11-18 10:18 p.m.
hide between his legs
Doogy 2024-11-18 10:19 p.m.
I've already said no ad hominem, why is the first message you send literally directly after mine is more ad hominem? @urinal cake
urinal cake 2024-11-18 10:19 p.m.
didn't read it
urinal cake 2024-11-18 10:20 p.m.
i was just scrolling and saw his message and replied to it before i got to the bottom
impactiii 2024-11-19 08:30 p.m.@Doogy
impactiii 2024-11-19 08:30 p.m.
Can we get a ruling on the first motion
impactiii 2024-11-19 08:30 p.m.
They responded and I’m not replying
impactiii 2024-11-19 10:00 p.m.@Doogy
Doogy 2024-11-19 10:35 p.m.
soon
urinal cake 2024-11-19 10:41 p.m.
impactiii 2024-11-19 11:43 p.m.
Today
impactiii 2024-11-19 11:43 p.m. 
impactiii 2024-11-20 02:15 a.m.MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER ONE
CC:@Doogy @Deleted User @urinal cake
impactiii 2024-11-20 02:15 a.m.MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS
CC:@Doogy @Deleted User @urinal cake
impactiii 2024-11-20 02:15 a.m.MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER TWO
CC:@Doogy @Deleted User @urinal cake
impactiii 2024-11-20 02:16 a.m.MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER THREE
CC:@Doogy @Deleted User @urinal cake
impactiii 2024-11-20 02:16 a.m.MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER FOUR
CC:@Doogy @Deleted User @urinal cake
impactiii 2024-11-20 02:16 a.m.MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER FIVE
CC:@Doogy @Deleted User @urinal cake
impactiii 2024-11-20 02:16 a.m.MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER SIX
CC:@Doogy @Deleted User @urinal cake
impactiii 2024-11-20 02:17 a.m.BRADY V. MARYLAND MOTION
CC:@Doogy @Deleted User @urinal cake
impactiii 2024-11-20 02:17 a.m.MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER SEVEN
CC:@Doogy @Deleted User @urinal cake
impactiii 2024-11-20 02:25 a.m.
Normally I would have done all of these in one motion, but I would rather have particularized requests whereas I would not be going through and begging the State to disclose things to me line-by-line in an omnibus motion—apologies for the formatting, Your Honor!
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-11-20 02:27 a.m.
Also, I believe the Court's decision on mandatory "timeliness" as was discussed at great length in state-of-mayflower-v-ispilledmytacos is relevant here. But it's happening again, and this deserves attention.
Deleted User 2024-11-20 06:05 a.m.
This is frivolous, we have until the 24th to submit discovery
Deleted User 2024-11-20 06:05 a.m.
Not to mention, the State has been trying to respond to your motion after motion, all three of which are frivolous themselves
Deleted User 2024-11-20 06:06 a.m.
You are becoming a vexatious litigant, and I hope the court recognizes such
Deleted User 2024-11-20 06:07 a.m.
I would ask for an extension if the court expects me to respond to fucking nine motions
Deleted User 2024-11-20 06:07 a.m.
All surrounding discovery, which we don’t have to submit until the 24th
Deleted User 2024-11-20 06:09 a.m.
cc: @Doogy
Deleted User 2024-11-20 06:11 a.m.
Actually, no, I’m gonna request a hearing on all nine of these motions, your honor.
Deleted User 2024-11-20 06:11 a.m.@Doogy
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:25 a.m.
I don’t see any reason for hearings on any of the motions but I would like to clarify that discovery is in fact open until the aforementioned time and date and all parties have until that deadline to provide discovery information.
Deleted UserThis is frivolous, we have until the 24th to submit discovery
impactiii 2024-11-20 10:26 a.m.
I wasn’t going to respond, but directing a question to @Doogy , how will I be expected to file any evidentiary motions if pretrial will be closed by the time they submit their discovery? And we will have this “eve of trial” issue again.
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:26 a.m.
I was hoping to do a hearing in lieu of nine responses
impactiii 2024-11-20 10:26 a.m.
I’m sure you are still familiar, I am
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:26 a.m.
If that’s agreeable with the court
impactiiiI wasn’t going to respond, but directing a question to @Doogy , how will I be expected to file any evidentiary motions if pretrial will be closed by the time they sub...
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:27 a.m.
Its commonly accepted that evidentiary motions in Mayflower can be submitted after the discovery period
impactiiiI wasn’t going to respond, but directing a question to @Doogy , how will I be expected to file any evidentiary motions if pretrial will be closed by the time they sub...
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:27 a.m.
Hmm. Perhaps this is something I can bring up with our judicial overlords to suggest changes to the rules of procedure so that discovery closes prior to pretrial to allow adequate time to respond to any evidentiary matters.
impactiii 2024-11-20 10:27 a.m.
What I used to do was set an order that all exhibit and witness lists have to be disclosed in the middle of pretrial
impactiii 2024-11-20 10:27 a.m.
And a Brady order at the beginning
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:28 a.m.
Nonetheless, I’ll likely allow evidentiary related motions for a short time after close before trial commences if it is required. It’ll be more of a discretionary matter.
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:28 a.m.
Anyway, I’ll review the motions all later today after I get home from work.
impactiii 2024-11-20 10:28 a.m.
Alright. Thanks for answering my question
DoogyNonetheless, I’ll likely allow evidentiary related motions for a short time after close before trial commences if it is required. It’ll be more of a discretionary matter.
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:28 a.m.
It is common practice to do so, these are non issues that he keeps bringing up
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:29 a.m.
Response to the third motion seq should be in this evening
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:29 a.m.
I would like a hearing in lieu of having to write nine motion responses, after the court has had time to review them
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:29 a.m.
On the contrary, there have been plenty of times in the history of Mayflower where all motions were barred after pretrial close. I am accepting of any need of clarification by parties to ensure everyone understands the process and is treated with impartiality.
impactiii 2024-11-20 10:30 a.m.
Also, will you accepted a witness and exhibit list from me if need be after pretrial closes? Because if they submit their lists once the window closes, that’s the only time I’ll have to compile a complete list of my own after my requests are fulfilled
impactiii 2024-11-20 10:31 a.m.
Accept*
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:31 a.m.
To my knowledge there have been many instances of evidentiary motions being accepted following the conclusion of pre trial. Nevertheless, it’s not the State’s burden, as we are within the parameters of the ROO
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:31 a.m.
ROP
Deleted UserI would like a hearing in lieu of having to write nine motion responses, after the court has had time to review them
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:31 a.m.
To be honest, I don’t see much of a need for you to respond to all the motions he submitted as some of them are essentially de facto expected from the state via their submission of discovery. I’d suggest you focus on any of the materials requested that you believe could be challenged as not being necessary to be provided under Brady and then possibly acquiesce to the other requests if they fall into mandatory discovery/Brady disclosures.
DoogyTo be honest, I don’t see much of a need for you to respond to all the motions he submitted as some of them are essentially de facto expected from the state via their submission of...
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:31 a.m.
Yeah the State was planning to submit Discovery Friday, two days prior to the pre trial period being over
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:32 a.m.
I would like to note the State’s disdain for this vexatious-like behavior on the part of defense counsel
DoogyTo be honest, I don’t see much of a need for you to respond to all the motions he submitted as some of them are essentially de facto expected from the state via their submission of...
impactiii 2024-11-20 10:32 a.m.
The court would still need to review any evidence in-camera to determine if it is actually Brady evidence. Thats usually how that’s done
impactiii 2024-11-20 10:32 a.m.
Because they have to disclose even potentially favorable evidence
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:32 a.m.
He can extend the pre trial period
impactiii 2024-11-20 10:32 a.m.
Things that would impeach a witness, etc.
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:32 a.m.
If need be
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:33 a.m.
And if you have an issue with a witness, you can move to voir dire them prior to their testimony
impactiii 2024-11-20 10:33 a.m.
Like if I ask for police records from a totally irrelevant case, that wouldn’t be favorable
impactiii 2024-11-20 10:33 a.m.
Or material
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:33 a.m.
I’m just stating that if he intends to respond to any of the discovery related motions that it’d be less burdensome to simply only respond to the necessary ones, i.e. the ones that he believes may not be applicable and could possibly be challenged
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:34 a.m.
As some of the materials you requested should be provided de facto upon their discovery submission.
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:34 a.m.
Correct, again I’ll determine that on Friday when I file discovery. I simply want the court to note the vexatious nature of the Defense Counsels motions.
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:34 a.m.
Either way, I’ll be reviewing(and probably ruling on) ALL the motions today unless the State has any intention to file a response to any of the ones filed this morning.
DoogyEither way, I’ll be reviewing(and probably ruling on) ALL the motions today unless the State has any intention to file a response to any of the ones filed this morning.
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:35 a.m.
I plan to have my response to the third motion seq this evening. I would encourage the court to rule on the first two today, and when I can get the third response in we will go from there
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:36 a.m.
As for discovery, I would offer to the court that we just address it all after I file discovery on Friday
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:36 a.m.
Again, more than likely I won’t even respond, if any issues arise with witnesses or evidence I will just ask for us to conduct a hearing to settle it all at once
DoogyEither way, I’ll be reviewing(and probably ruling on) ALL the motions today unless the State has any intention to file a response to any of the ones filed this morning.
impactiii 2024-11-20 10:37 a.m.
You could probably just make a giant ruling and go down one by one like
Motion for Discovery Number One is GRANTED/DENIED.
Motion for Discovery Number Two is GRANTED IN-PART.
And so on
Motion for Discovery Number One is GRANTED/DENIED.
Motion for Discovery Number Two is GRANTED IN-PART.
And so on
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:37 a.m.
Oh, sorry, yeah everything but the 3rd motion I’ll rule on today unless it is stated you intend to respond to any of the ones filed this morning.
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:37 a.m.
The third motion, the motion to dismiss(i believe), I had originally stated Friday for a deadline for a response if I remember correctly.
DoogyThe third motion, the motion to dismiss(i believe), I had originally stated Friday for a deadline for a response if I remember correctly.
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:37 a.m.
Correct
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:37 a.m.
But I’m hoping to finish it today
DoogyThe third motion, the motion to dismiss(i believe), I had originally stated Friday for a deadline for a response if I remember correctly.
impactiii 2024-11-20 10:37 a.m.
You didn’t have a chance to read it right?
impactiiiYou could probably just make a giant ruling and go down one by one like Motion for Discovery Number One is GRANTED/DENIED. Motion for Discovery Number Two is GRANTED IN-PART. A...
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:38 a.m.
yeah that’s the plan for the ones you filed this morning
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:38 a.m.
considering they’re all discovery related
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:38 a.m.
Have you read the initial motions and responses
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:39 a.m.
No, I intend to do so in one sitting to ensure I sufficiently take in the arguments and necessary info. I have, however, read through all the ones submitted this morning which is how I formulated my response earlier of stating that the majority of the requested content should be de facto provided, etc
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:40 a.m.
Okay great we are on the same page with discovery
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:40 a.m.
Alright we will standby on the first two rulings
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:40 a.m.
And we’ll have the third response hopefully in this evening
DoogyNo, I intend to do so in one sitting to ensure I sufficiently take in the arguments and necessary info. I have, however, read through all the ones submitted this morning which is h...
impactiii 2024-11-20 10:41 a.m.
I may end up submitting another because I learned of two possible tip-lines
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:41 a.m.
Okay so just to clarify:
Motion 1: rule on today
Motion 2: rule on today
Motion 3: await response by friday
all the other ones submitted today: rule on today(unless state intends to respond)
Motion 1: rule on today
Motion 2: rule on today
Motion 3: await response by friday
all the other ones submitted today: rule on today(unless state intends to respond)
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:41 a.m.
and just to FURTHER clarify, by “today” I mean sometime after work aka after 6pm ET
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:42 a.m.
That sounds good, motion three will potentially be filed around 830 if I don’t get a lot of calls
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:42 a.m.
As for discovery, I would just ask we wait until we file discovery on Friday, and any unsettled matters we have a hearing on and get it settled all at once
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:45 a.m.
I understand, I’d just like for you now to read through them all as, despite there being many, they are not that verbose and determine what they are requesting and then, if you could, just state in here to which of them you intend to respond to, that way I can just rule on the ones that you aren’t intending to respond to. It’s likely that I’ll just rule on the obvious inherent ones straight away but for the less obvious ones, it’d be more practical for you to simply state your intention to respond to them to delay my ruling on those specific motions, if that makes sense.
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:46 a.m.
Okay I can have that done at lunch time
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:46 a.m.
I’ll tag you when I’ve read through them, and what our intentions are
Doogy pinned a message to this channel.2025-06-21 08:43 p.m.
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:47 a.m.
just pinning that before it gets lost in the annals of time within this chat
Deleted UserI’ll tag you when I’ve read through them, and what our intentions are
Doogy 2024-11-20 10:47 a.m.
Sounds good, thanks
Deleted User 2024-11-20 01:58 p.m.
Okay I have some initial responses for the discovery motions. I’m on phone so please bare with my formatting:
Doogy 2024-11-20 02:01 p.m.
I just am curious on which ones you intend to respond to that way I can await your responses for those
Deleted User 2024-11-20 02:01 p.m.
Yeah I’m gonna break it all down
Doogy 2024-11-20 02:01 p.m.
So you can just list which ones you intend to respond to and I’ll ignore ruling on those for now until like Friday at the latest
Doogy 2024-11-20 02:01 p.m.
oh ok good
Deleted User 2024-11-20 02:08 p.m.
Discovery Motion One: State doesn’t contest it. We will be submitting discovery within the pre-trial period, more than likely on Friday.
Discovery Motion Two: State rejects the allegations, and will request that we have a hearing to address the witness in question.
Discovery Motion Three: State rejects the allegations, and will request that we have a hearing to address the witness in question.
Discovery Motion Four: State rejects the allegations, and will request that we have a hearing to address the witness in question.
Discovery Motion Five: The State has not yet filed discovery, but will stipulate as to the title of the underscored clip. This will be within our discovery filing, and it is a true and accurate account of the events in question. No other video, to our knowledge exists. We welcome the Defense to present evidence in opposition, if they posses it.
Discovery Motion Six: State is working to determine if any transcripts exist regarding the discussion between prosecutors and the DOJ, but will note that any conversations not related to material being presented at trial does not fall under our Brady requirements.
Discovery Motion Seven: State is working to determine if any transcripts exist regarding the discussion between prosecutors and the DOJ, but will note that any conversations not related to material being presented at trial does not fall under our Brady requirements.
Brady Motion: The State is reviewing their prior files on this case to determine if the alleged Brady material exists. We will present the court with proof to the contrary in our Discovery filing.
Motion for Sanctions: We have not violated court ordered pre-trial deadlines. This motion is vexatious and frivolous.
Discovery Motion Two: State rejects the allegations, and will request that we have a hearing to address the witness in question.
Discovery Motion Three: State rejects the allegations, and will request that we have a hearing to address the witness in question.
Discovery Motion Four: State rejects the allegations, and will request that we have a hearing to address the witness in question.
Discovery Motion Five: The State has not yet filed discovery, but will stipulate as to the title of the underscored clip. This will be within our discovery filing, and it is a true and accurate account of the events in question. No other video, to our knowledge exists. We welcome the Defense to present evidence in opposition, if they posses it.
Discovery Motion Six: State is working to determine if any transcripts exist regarding the discussion between prosecutors and the DOJ, but will note that any conversations not related to material being presented at trial does not fall under our Brady requirements.
Discovery Motion Seven: State is working to determine if any transcripts exist regarding the discussion between prosecutors and the DOJ, but will note that any conversations not related to material being presented at trial does not fall under our Brady requirements.
Brady Motion: The State is reviewing their prior files on this case to determine if the alleged Brady material exists. We will present the court with proof to the contrary in our Discovery filing.
Motion for Sanctions: We have not violated court ordered pre-trial deadlines. This motion is vexatious and frivolous.
Deleted User 2024-11-20 02:08 p.m.
cc: @Doogy @impactiii
Deleted User 2024-11-20 02:08 p.m.
Basically we won’t add additional responses to the court record. We simply ask for a hearing on the two motions surrounding the defenses objections to a potential witness. Everything else will get covered in our discovery filing.
Deleted UserDiscovery Motion One: State doesn’t contest it. We will be submitting discovery within the pre-trial period, more than likely on Friday. Discovery Motion Two: State rejects t...
impactiii 2024-11-20 02:25 p.m.
It doesn't need to be presented at trial to fall under your Brady requirement, FYI
impactiii 2024-11-20 02:27 p.m.
I had a little writeup with caselaw
impactiiiIt doesn't need to be presented at trial to fall under your Brady requirement, FYI
Deleted User 2024-11-20 02:27 p.m.
It has to be exculpatory evidence.. I know what the requirements of Brady are. Patronizing people is never appreciated. Giving history lessons is not needed.
Deleted User 2024-11-20 02:28 p.m.
The fact remains that you can sit tight and wait for our discovery submission
impactiii 2024-11-20 02:28 p.m.
1. In United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Brady duty to disclose applies to exculpatory evidence as well as evidence that could be used to impeach witnesses.
2. In Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), the particularized requirement to disclose "exculpatory" evidence was broadened to include even "potentially" exculpatory evidence.
3. In United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), it was held that the lack of a defendant's request (or a court order) did not leave the Government free of all Brady obligation.
2. In Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995), the particularized requirement to disclose "exculpatory" evidence was broadened to include even "potentially" exculpatory evidence.
3. In United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976), it was held that the lack of a defendant's request (or a court order) did not leave the Government free of all Brady obligation.
Deleted User 2024-11-20 02:29 p.m.
I hope you don’t need to write thirteen motions to give the court a history lesson
DoogyI would like to mention though, before we proceed, that I will not be accepting of any ad hominem or failure to maintain court decorum in the proceedings. Please keep things civil ...
impactiii 2024-11-20 02:30 p.m.
I don't want to bother you while you are at work, but here's more ad hom attacks. Thought we were having a productive afternoon. @Doogy
Deleted User 2024-11-20 02:32 p.m.
They aren’t as hominem attacks, because I am speaking factually to your preponderance to waste everyone’s time. The State did not request a history lesson, and your patronization of officers of the court is not appreciated. File your motions and let them speak for themselves. That’s all I have to say
Deleted User 2024-11-20 05:50 p.m.@Doogy Third response should be done around 9ish. I’ve got everything in regards to the discovery motions. Lots of affidavits and screenshots. So hopefully we can avoid thirty more motions
Doogy 2024-11-20 07:38 p.m.
Ruling on the first omnibus motion has been posted rulings .
Doogy 2024-11-20 07:39 p.m.
Accordingly, the State is ordered to produce all Brady and Giglio material in a timely manner as well as to preserve all evidence relevant to the case or exculpatory in nature.
Doogy 2024-11-20 07:39 p.m.@Deleted User @impactiii
Doogy 2024-11-20 07:40 p.m.
Could you clarify on the difference between this original motion for Brady disclosures and the one you submitted more recently? @impactiii
Deleted User 2024-11-20 07:40 p.m.
I do t think there is one
Deleted User 2024-11-20 07:40 p.m.
Just noting for the record, all tenants will be fulfilled on Friday in our discovery filing
Doogy 2024-11-20 07:40 p.m.
"Seq #011" he submitted
Deleted UserI do t think there is one
Deleted User 2024-11-20 07:40 p.m.
Dont*
impactiiiimpactiii 2024-11-20 07:41 p.m.
Yes, this one asks for all the Brady evidence that the prosecutor in the last case withheld (see the show cause order)
Doogy 2024-11-20 07:41 p.m.
Your original motion stated the same as well.
Deleted User 2024-11-20 07:41 p.m.
It will all be addressed shortly
impactiii 2024-11-20 07:41 p.m.
I don't believe it was verbatim like that
Doogy 2024-11-20 07:41 p.m.
"compelling the State to disclose (1) any and all notes from the previously
dismissed case, State v. nexuvz, CR-0012-24, including those from the prosecutor who was
ordered to show cause for withholding Brady evidence1;"
dismissed case, State v. nexuvz, CR-0012-24, including those from the prosecutor who was
ordered to show cause for withholding Brady evidence1;"
Doogy 2024-11-20 07:41 p.m.
shit copy paste
impactiiiI don't believe it was verbatim like that
Deleted User 2024-11-20 07:41 p.m.
Come on man it’s practically the same
Doogy"compelling the State to disclose (1) any and all notes from the previously dismissed case, State v. nexuvz, CR-0012-24, including those from the prosecutor who was ordered to show...
Doogy 2024-11-20 07:41 p.m.
this is from your omnibus motion @impactiii
Deleted User 2024-11-20 07:42 p.m.
It’s do vexatious
impactiii 2024-11-20 07:42 p.m.
That would only cover his notes, like his communications or investigative conclusions in writing. This expands it to actual material evidence (like witness statements, videos, etc.) that he withheld that he was supposed to disclose
Doogy 2024-11-20 07:43 p.m.
OK
Deleted User 2024-11-20 07:46 p.m.
Not to worry, we’re gonna put the nonsense to rest with two affidavits and some other filings
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:05 p.m.
Response to #003
cc:@Doogy
cc:
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:09 p.m.
For the record, the Court in Baldwin only considered 6 months imprisonment serious because of the weight that a felony conviction carries, not just the term of imprisonment
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:09 p.m.@Doogy
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:09 p.m.
I may or may not have time to submit a reply in support
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:09 p.m.
I’ll be on the road all day tomorrow
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:09 p.m.
So just note that
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:09 p.m.
You can't have it both ways
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:09 p.m.
if you want to strictly interpret case law
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:09 p.m.
I'm gonna strictly interpret it.
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:10 p.m.
the Supreme Court commented little on the nature of the offense-types. Mainly because they note the variance between State's in what is and is not a felony/misdemeanor
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:10 p.m.
or as they call it, "petty" or "serious" offenses
impactiiiFor the record, the Court in Baldwin only considered 6 months imprisonment serious because of the weight that a felony conviction carries, not just the term of imprisonment
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:10 p.m.
I’m just saying, thats how it is
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:10 p.m.
The simple fact remains that the defendant faces only a total of 37 minutes in jail, which falls 259,163 minutes short of the standard
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:11 p.m.
That’s a cherry-picked interpretation
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:11 p.m.
Doesn’t account for the felony classification of the offense
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:11 p.m.
It triggers when the offense is “serious.” Subjective. A felony is serious. They only considered the actual sentence as a supplement.
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:12 p.m.
You're still ignoring that he does not have a constitutional right to it under the State Constitition. Not to mention there is no case within Mayflower which can point to in support of your question. Moreover, he is not being charged anywhere near 6 months imprisonment, therefore you don't meet the threshhold. The only cherry-picking would be debating the nature of the offense. The length of imprisonment is the mitigating factor. Period.
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:13 p.m.
Our state constitution doesn’t matter because we incorporate the bills of rights
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:13 p.m.
Not here, I mean
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:13 p.m.
Also, Judge acerxtro just said that we incorporate the bill of rights
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:13 p.m.
In a ruling
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:13 p.m.
Not like it mattered
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:13 p.m.
I'm not getting into this debate with you, I forgot you don't know this is Roblox.
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:14 p.m.
It’s a legal roleplay
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:14 p.m.
I’m playing a role
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:14 p.m.
That is confined by
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:14 p.m.
get this
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:14 p.m.
a lego game
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:14 p.m.
So what?
urinal cake 2024-11-20 09:15 p.m.
so you're saying that every criminal defendant
urinal cake 2024-11-20 09:15 p.m.
needs a jury?
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:15 p.m.
Don't
urinal cake 2024-11-20 09:15 p.m.
not you, sado
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:15 p.m.
I know
urinal cake 2024-11-20 09:15 p.m.
wat
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:15 p.m.
I don't wanna hear him
urinal cake 2024-11-20 09:15 p.m.
i mean
urinal cake 2024-11-20 09:15 p.m.
i'm just trying to wrap my head around
urinal cake 2024-11-20 09:16 p.m.
how completely irrational that is
urinal cake 2024-11-20 09:16 p.m.
you can't apply every single irl precedent to roblox
urinal cake 2024-11-20 09:16 p.m.
that simply isn't realistic
urinal cake 2024-11-20 09:19 p.m.
also mayflower uses the selective incorporation doctrine
urinal cake 2024-11-20 09:19 p.m.
we chose the rights criminal defendants would have and implemented them into our constitution
urinal cake 2024-11-20 09:19 p.m.
not every single one of them
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:19 p.m.
We'll just let the two documents speak for themselves
impactiii 2024-11-20 09:21 p.m.
Selective incorporation means incorporation on a case-by-case basis. Here’s your case-by-case basis:
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), overruling Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), and holding the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule applicable to the States; Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964), overruling Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908), and holding the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination applicable to the States; Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), overruling Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), and holding the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applicable to the States; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), overruling Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), and holding that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel was applicable to the States. See also Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967) (Sixth Amendment speedy trial right applicable to the States); Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) (Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process applicable to the States); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) (Sixth Amendment right to jury trial applicable to the States).
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), overruling Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), and holding the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule applicable to the States; Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964), overruling Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908), and holding the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination applicable to the States; Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969), overruling Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937), and holding the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applicable to the States; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), overruling Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942), and holding that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel was applicable to the States. See also Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967) (Sixth Amendment speedy trial right applicable to the States); Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) (Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process applicable to the States); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) (Sixth Amendment right to jury trial applicable to the States).
Deleted User 2024-11-20 09:22 p.m.
And he's back to strict interpretation of real life case law, let him have his moment. My response wll suffice
impactiiiSelective incorporation means incorporation on a case-by-case basis. Here’s your case-by-case basis: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), overruling Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1...
urinal cake 2024-11-20 09:23 p.m.
wow i really enjoyed reading this
urinal cake 2024-11-20 09:23 p.m.
thanks
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:40 p.m.@Doogy Will we still see a ruling on the second motion/response this evening?
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:40 p.m.
Also, Discovery will be submitted a day earlier than expected. It should be end by EOD tomorrow.
Deleted User 2024-11-20 10:40 p.m.
Waiting on one last screenshot to fulfill the Defense's request
impactiii 2024-11-20 11:31 p.m.MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER EIGHT
CC:@Doogy @Deleted User @urinal cake
urinal cake 2024-11-20 11:32 p.m.
you are so obviously just wasting time 
impactiii 2024-11-20 11:32 p.m.
I wouldn't need any of this if you just gave me your discovery. Also @Doogy ad hom...
impactiii 2024-11-21 12:05 a.m.PLEA IN BAR
CC:@Doogy @Deleted User @urinal cake
impactiii 2024-11-21 01:45 a.m.LETTER TO CHAMBERS
CC:@Doogy @Deleted User @urinal cake
148.99 KB
Deleted User 2024-11-21 06:46 a.m.
He really filed another motion about the same thing
impactiii 2024-11-21 07:04 a.m.
That’s not really a motion
Deleted User 2024-11-21 07:08 a.m.
You’re write, it’s just plain unnecessary
Deleted User 2024-11-21 07:09 a.m.
You’re wasting the time of the clerks office who has to process all of these documents, you’re wasting the courts time discussing issues he has already addressed, and ultimately you’re wasting your own time.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 07:26 a.m.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 07:26 a.m.
cc: @impactiii @Doogy
Deleted User 2024-11-21 07:28 a.m.
And sado, if there isn’t something you wanted, here is a novel idea, just ask for it
Deleted Userimpactiii 2024-11-21 07:29 a.m.
I think you may have mis-cited @Deleted User
impactiii 2024-11-21 07:29 a.m.
This says federal rule 17(a)
Deleted User 2024-11-21 07:30 a.m.
impactiii 2024-11-21 07:30 a.m.
Yeah that’s the federal rules of procedure we don’t use that in this court
Deleted User 2024-11-21 07:31 a.m.
They are persuasive. I cited the associated crim pro for mayflower, which is vague at best
Deleted User 2024-11-21 07:31 a.m.
This is not a national emergency
impactiii 2024-11-21 07:32 a.m.
Uh alright
impactiii 2024-11-21 07:32 a.m.
How strange
Deleted User 2024-11-21 07:32 a.m.
I hope you don’t file ten motions because I cited a persuasive authority in a motion
impactiii 2024-11-21 07:33 a.m.
Well persuasive authorities have weights to them
impactiii 2024-11-21 07:33 a.m.
This is like nothing because it’s a rule from the courts a step up
Deleted User 2024-11-21 07:34 a.m.
You will not patronize me with one of your history lessons. I am more than capable of conducting this case on behalf of the State, and nearly all of your arguments hold no weight in the context of Mayflower.
impactiii 2024-11-21 07:35 a.m.
And so does your citation to the federal rules of procedure
Deleted User 2024-11-21 07:36 a.m.
It simply a citation in support of the State’s reasoning for a subpoena, a commonly issued document in criminal proceedings. You don’t need, or get to turn every simply aspect of a case into a multi-pronged point of litigation.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 07:36 a.m.
Your tactics are vexatious, and bring no added protection or defense to your client.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 07:37 a.m.
Rather, your constant patronizations of both the State and the court’s intelligence is not appreciated or warranted.
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:33 a.m.@Deleted User I would like your DMs with notjedi
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:33 a.m.
Or whoever got the affidavit from him
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:36 a.m.
On the premise of????
Deleted UserOn the premise of????
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:42 a.m.
So I can see how the affidavit was obtained
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:46 a.m.
Can you cite some cases that empower the defense to gain access to all communications related to an affidavit?
Deleted UserCan you cite some cases that empower the defense to gain access to all communications related to an affidavit?
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:54 a.m.
Brady v. Maryland and its progeny. Any evidence that is impeaching to the state’s witness or to the state’s investigation/case must be turned over. You’re already under compulsion to give this to me.
See (4) and the residual clause (8). But even if you weren’t under compulsion, you’d still have to give it to me. You directly reached out to a key witness, or at least I think it was you.
See (4) and the residual clause (8). But even if you weren’t under compulsion, you’d still have to give it to me. You directly reached out to a key witness, or at least I think it was you.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:55 a.m.
I didn’t discuss preparation for testimony with the witness, if that’s what you’re wanting disclosed
Deleted UserI didn’t discuss preparation for testimony with the witness, if that’s what you’re wanting disclosed
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:55 a.m.
Who did?
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:55 a.m.
Who got the affidavit
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:56 a.m.
I am the only member of the State who contacted the witness in question. Moreover, I am the court officer upon which the affidavit was sworn to
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:56 a.m.
Okay, so I’m gonna need your DMs with him
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:56 a.m.
This should’ve been automatic
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:56 a.m.
You are entitled to my DMs with him, only if I discussed or prepared his testimony for trial, which I didn’t.
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:57 a.m.
So the affidavit has nothing to with this case…?
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:57 a.m.
For the time, I need the DMs between you and the witness
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:57 a.m.
You are the only one who contacted him
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:57 a.m.@Doogy
impactiiiFor the time, I need the DMs between you and the witness
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:58 a.m.
For the last time*
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:58 a.m.
You don’t issue ultimatums, you are not a judge. Your tone throughout this entire trial is unproductive and disrespectful
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:59 a.m.
I’ll await input from the court as to the scope of their discovery order before proceeding further
Deleted UserI am the only member of the State who contacted the witness in question. Moreover, I am the court officer upon which the affidavit was sworn to
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:00 a.m.
Why aren’t you willing to give it to me? You admit here to soliciting the affidavit from him and reaching out to him directly.
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:01 a.m.@Doogy I’m willing to put this on paper but it’ll take a few hours.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:01 a.m.
It’s a burden on the state to produce the entirety of my DMs with the witness. This entire case you have have inundated the state with useless requests, taking much of their time and resources.
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:01 a.m.
Are the DMs voluminous?
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:01 a.m.
As such, we are only going to go as far as directed by the court, when it comes to the disclosures
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:02 a.m.
Clearly I can’t see what the contents of the DMs are myself so I won’t pretend to know what they contain but if they fall within the scope of the Brady Giglio material ordered by the Court then it’d fall within the scope of disclosures.
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:03 a.m.
also yeah sorry I had intended on ruling on the majority of the stuff yesterday but I got sleepy 
DoogyClearly I can’t see what the contents of the DMs are myself so I won’t pretend to know what they contain but if they fall within the scope of the Brady Giglio material ordered by t...
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:03 a.m.
He wants a yes or no
impactiiiWhy aren’t you willing to give it to me? You admit here to soliciting the affidavit from him and reaching out to him directly.
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:04 a.m.
.
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:04 a.m.
Directly related to witness preparation which falls under (4) and (8)
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:04 a.m.
Of our original order
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:04 a.m.
Alright so can the State submit DMs under seal to the court, and let them make a ruling on their need to be disclosed under Brady?
Deleted UserAlright so can the State submit DMs under seal to the court, and let them make a ruling on their need to be disclosed under Brady?
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:04 a.m.
As long as I get to see them too
impactiiiDirectly related to witness preparation which falls under (4) and (8)
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:04 a.m.
Your motion is not the legal standard applied to what is Brady Material
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:05 a.m.
It doesn’t matter. You disclose whatever is even possibly exculpatory and material. If it’s not, then it will be excluded
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:05 a.m.
Courts in real life typically conduct in-camera review with both parties present
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:05 a.m.
Like I said, I don’t know what’s within the DMs so I don’t know if it falls within the scope of the ordered disclosures. I’d say that it’d be up to the integrity of the State and counsel to determine if they are currently compelled to disclose the contents if it falls within the requested information that the Defendant motioned for and the Court granted a compelling order for.
impactiiiDirectly related to witness preparation which falls under (4) and (8)
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:06 a.m.
.
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:06 a.m.
Or, yeah, similar to the other case, as sado was a party there as well, I could review and determine their relevance myself for disclosure I suppose
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:07 a.m.
But I need to see them too in that case. And if they’re deemed irrelevant, then we can exclude
DoogyOr, yeah, similar to the other case, as sado was a party there as well, I could review and determine their relevance myself for disclosure I suppose
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:07 a.m.
That would be the State’s preference. Primarily that you make a determination prior to us having to turn them over to defense counsel. We don’t have anything to hide, but we don’t desire to produce voluminous amounts of data unnecessarily for the court record.
impactiiiBut I need to see them too in that case. And if they’re deemed irrelevant, then we can exclude
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:08 a.m.
It’s similar to the ISpilledMyTacos case. It’s entirely plausible that the majority of the DMs are unrelated or just straight up irrelevant or possibly sensitive. Similarly to that case, they could simply be disclosed after the fact for you to review.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:08 a.m.
Correct, that’s precisely the nature of the DMS
DoogyIt’s similar to the ISpilledMyTacos case. It’s entirely plausible that the majority of the DMs are unrelated or just straight up irrelevant or possibly sensitive. Similarly to that...
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:09 a.m.
But he said, on this record, that he directly reached out to the witness—he went insofar as to say he has “voluminous” DMs with this witness. He said he directly solicited the affidavit from this witness. He was the one who reached out. If they’re sensitive, then he can give them to you
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:09 a.m.
It’s literally the State confirming the identity of the witness, and requesting they write an affidavit to attest to such
impactiiiBut he said, on this record, that he directly reached out to the witness—he went insofar as to say he has “voluminous” DMs with this witness. He said he directly solicited the affi...
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:09 a.m.
This is very important that we get to the bottom of this
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:10 a.m.
Tbh that part is probably within the scope of the disclosures
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:10 a.m.
I want to know what was said
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:10 a.m.
if it’s you and the witness discussing the affidavit then that’d fall within the scope of witness preparation
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:10 a.m.
Correct, what I’m gonna do is submit all relevant communications
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:11 a.m.@Deleted User I don’t need another document just send them here in images
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:11 a.m.
Both regarding the affidavit
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:11 a.m.
And their identity
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:11 a.m.
Because a lot of it is not relevant and nowhere near exculpatory
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:12 a.m.
That’s not for you to decide
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:12 a.m.
That’s for the judge
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:12 a.m.
Actually, it’s for me to disclose and for the judge to review
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:12 a.m.
You give the entire transcript to him
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:12 a.m.
And he can review it
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:12 a.m.
I won’t even look!
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:12 a.m.
If you want to further validate concerns, then you voir dire the witness prior to them taking the stand to testify in the case
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:13 a.m.
Also, can you review the discovery document and tell me which of the motions are now satisfied and therefore moot? @impactiii
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:13 a.m.
Fine, you know what, let me waste more time
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:13 a.m.@Doogy Will the court accept a sealed copy of the DMs, for their review? You could then determine what is and is not relevant to be disclosed to the State?
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:13 a.m.
As long as he sees everything
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:14 a.m.
No omissions
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:14 a.m.
And I should be there too
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:14 a.m.
We can make a private groupchat
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:14 a.m.
In-camera
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:15 a.m.
I mean it’s literally automatic contempt if anything gets disclosed outside of that so
DoogyAlso, can you review the discovery document and tell me which of the motions are now satisfied and therefore moot? @impactiii
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:18 a.m.
MTD#1: Fulfilled
MTD#2: Fulfilled in-part
MTD#3 Fulfilled in-part
MTD#4: Fulfilled
MTD#5: Unfulfilled
MTD#6: Unfulfilled
BVM: Unfulfilled
MTD#7: Fulfilled
MTD#2: Fulfilled in-part
MTD#3 Fulfilled in-part
MTD#4: Fulfilled
MTD#5: Unfulfilled
MTD#6: Unfulfilled
BVM: Unfulfilled
MTD#7: Fulfilled
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:19 a.m.
Look I’ll just send them here, but it’s not happening until this evening. Once again the defense is frivolously wasting the State’s time. None of the conversations are exculpatory, nor are they going to be used against their client.
impactiiiMTD#1: Fulfilled MTD#2: Fulfilled in-part MTD#3 Fulfilled in-part MTD#4: Fulfilled MTD#5: Unfulfilled MTD#6: Unfulfilled BVM: Unfulfilled MTD#7: Fulfilled
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:19 a.m.
How about you just say what you still want so we can determine what you’re gonna get
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:19 a.m.
Believe it or not, there is no conspiracy to prejudice your client, half the stuff you requested doesn’t exist, or is not factually accurate
Deleted UserHow about you just say what you still want so we can determine what you’re gonna get
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:19 a.m.
Right now I want your messages with that witness
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:20 a.m.
I want to know the full extent of the conversation
Deleted UserBelieve it or not, there is no conspiracy to prejudice your client, half the stuff you requested doesn’t exist, or is not factually accurate
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:20 a.m.
Then you certify that
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:21 a.m.
The State does not have the burden to prove your allegations, you do. The State has not acted in bad faith, and to make suggestions of such, is inflammatory and not rooted in fact.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:22 a.m.
The State’s burden is to disclose evidence in accordance with Brady. It is not your prerogative what is and is not a Brady disclosure.
Deleted UserThe State does not have the burden to prove your allegations, you do. The State has not acted in bad faith, and to make suggestions of such, is inflammatory and not rooted in fact.
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:26 a.m.
You actually have a duty to help me build my case as a prosecutor, believe it or not; the Brady rule is interesting in the way that it flips the traditional adversarial system and shifts the burden solely onto the State. That’s the Brady rule—and that means even if I don’t ask, you give it to me.
If something isn’t relevant under Brady, then the Court has to review it. If it’s irrelevant, then it won’t be included at trial.
@Doogy If he doesn’t disclose that evidence within a reasonable timeframe, either right now or by the latest reasonable time (he’s online, he can do it right now), then I’m going to ask for an adverse inference against the State and possibly move for other sanctions, in civil contempt, for defiance of this Court’s Brady order—this is their notice and the Court’s.
If something isn’t relevant under Brady, then the Court has to review it. If it’s irrelevant, then it won’t be included at trial.
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:27 a.m.
We’ve been down this road before with our friend, the former Deputy Attorney General. If you will recall, that case was dismissed with prejudice.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:29 a.m.
The State has the burden to produce evidence, not the burden to prove your inflammatory allegations. Accusing just about every party involved on the State’s side with some form of misconduct, and then failing to support it with evidence is defamatory. You’ve, again, chosen to patronize the state by giving a history lesson on the court record. This is not necessary, nor professional.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:29 a.m.
I am at work and on my phone, and we have three days before pre trial ends, calm yourself.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:30 a.m.
You’ll get our additional disclosures this evening when I’m free
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:30 a.m.
You’re on your phone, so go and screen record your DMs with the witness
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:30 a.m.
Otherwise I’m just gonna move for a finding of adverse inference right now, and then sanctions when I get home
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:30 a.m.
Which should be in about 7-8 hours
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:32 a.m.
You know I can’t understand your inability to comprehend this
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:32 a.m.
We have three more days of pre trial, and we’ve stated when you’ll get a disclosure
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:32 a.m.
Please go find something productive to do
impactiiiYou’re on your phone, so go and screen record your DMs with the witness
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:33 a.m.@Deleted User Why can’t you do this?
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:33 a.m.
Are you going to wait out the two days?
impactiiiDeleted User 2024-11-21 09:38 a.m.
I’m a firefighter. I am actively working
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:38 a.m.
I have said three times now, you will get them this evening
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:40 a.m.
You’re on your phone. This is the easiest thing in the world
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:40 a.m.
Let me send you a tutorial
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:42 a.m.
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:42 a.m.@Deleted User Make sense?
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:42 a.m.
See how quick that was?
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:06 a.m.@Doogy I’m gonna ask the court to admonish defense counsel for these statements. They are blatantly disrespectful. This will now be the fourth time I note our intent to disclose the DMs this evening, when I am not working. Which is well within the pre-trial period.
impactiii 2024-11-21 10:12 a.m.
Why are you withholding evidence?
impactiii 2024-11-21 10:12 a.m.
What’s in those direct messages between you and the witness?
impactiii 2024-11-21 10:18 a.m.
More importantly, what’s in there that you don’t want us to know about?
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:32 a.m.
This will now be the fifth time I note our intent to disclose the DMs when I am not at work. The State will now ask the court to sanction the defense for their baseless accusations of withholding evidence. Such remarks are not grounded in any factual background presented to the record. Moreover, the State is well within the scheduled pre trial period. Defense counsel is repeatedly attacking the credibility of the State, without justification or evidence in support.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:32 a.m.
cc: @Doogy
impactiiiClick to see attachment.
impactiii 2024-11-21 10:56 a.m.
Please refer to the tutorial
Deleted UserDeleted User 2024-11-21 06:27 p.m.@Doogy The State has the transcript of the Direct Messages, but we'd like our two requests addressed prior to submission. Just so they don't get lost in the court record.
Deleted Userimpactiii 2024-11-21 06:29 p.m.
So like a quid pro quo
impactiii 2024-11-21 06:29 p.m.
You give him the transcript in exchange for him approving your requests
impactiii 2024-11-21 06:29 p.m.
Sounds ethical
Deleted User 2024-11-21 06:31 p.m.
That’s not at all what I said, once again you are unprofessional. I clearly stated that we wished for a ruling so the requests were not covered up by your lengthy, frivolous, statements on the record. Moreover, for the sixth time, we are within the pre trial period by several days. Your antics are not productive, are vexatious, and ultimately just annoying.
impactiii 2024-11-21 06:32 p.m.
Not for Brady. Brady disclosures are due as soon as you gain knowledge of the evidence. Timelines are different.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 06:34 p.m.
These materials are being given to shut you up, not because we feel they are covered under Brady. This, again, was covered at length earlier today. You love to twist the truth. As we discussed previously, the State is simply disclosing this to quell your love for frivolous motions
impactiii 2024-11-21 07:40 p.m.@Deleted User Where are the DMs?
impactiii 2024-11-21 07:41 p.m.
We are now seven hours out
Deleted UserDeleted User 2024-11-21 07:41 p.m.@Doogy Bumping
impactiii 2024-11-21 07:41 p.m.
Okay, this isn't a quid-pro-quo
impactiii 2024-11-21 07:41 p.m.
You don't give the court stuff in exchange for things
impactiii 2024-11-21 07:42 p.m.
You give it to me or I'm just going to file a motion to hold you in contempt
impactiii 2024-11-21 07:42 p.m.
It's that simple
Deleted User 2024-11-21 07:42 p.m.
I’m not responding to stupidity. That’s not at all what I’m doing and you know that. I have two days to file pre trial. Please go do something productive
impactiiiYou give it to me or I'm just going to file a motion to hold you in contempt
Deleted User 2024-11-21 07:42 p.m.
Please go spend some time on that so I don’t have to listen to you
impactiii 2024-11-21 07:42 p.m.
Okay, have it your way
Doogy 2024-11-21 07:58 p.m.
Alright so;
#001 - ruled on
#002 - pending
#003 - pending
#004 - moot
#005 - pending
#006 - pending
#007 - pending
#008 - moot
#009 - pending
#010 - pending
#011 - pending
#012 - moot
#013 - pending
#014 - pending
motion for subpoena - pending
#001 - ruled on
#002 - pending
#003 - pending
#004 - moot
#005 - pending
#006 - pending
#007 - pending
#008 - moot
#009 - pending
#010 - pending
#011 - pending
#012 - moot
#013 - pending
#014 - pending
motion for subpoena - pending
Doogy 2024-11-21 07:58 p.m.
that is where I believe we're at
DoogyAlright so; #001 - ruled on #002 - pending #003 - pending #004 - moot #005 - pending #006 - pending #007 - pending #008 - moot #009 - pending #010 - pending #011 - pending #012 - ...
Deleted User 2024-11-21 07:59 p.m.
Yeah, we made one request for an admonishment, and one for sanctions related to conduct
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:00 p.m.@Doogy Waiting on you to pry the transcripts from him
Doogythat is where I believe we're at
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:00 p.m.
We have the disclosure for the defense, if the court is ready to comment on our requests we are more than happy to go ahead and submit the messages. We mainly just wanted to make sure our two requests didn’t get lost to the court record, given the propensity for counsel to give history lessons.
Doogy 2024-11-21 08:04 p.m.
I'm just going to be entirely candid and state that I don't respect either sides comments especially after I have stated twice now to avoid ad hominem. I'm simply going to leave it at that and direct all parties to address the issue with the State Bar if you wish to do so. Consider this the final warning though for this type of behavior in my chambers or else I will consider sanctions. It is not that difficult to work on opposing sides but still with each other to have the proceedings go smoothly. I am not here to hold anyone's hand or to mediate between two people throwing around useless obscenities at each other; I am here to conduct these proceedings effectively.
Doogy 2024-11-21 08:04 p.m.
With that being said, please do not purposely withhold the disclosures, you have been compelled from the court to disclose the material mentioned within the court ruling.
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:04 p.m.@Deleted User Can I have them now?
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:05 p.m.
The State has not purposely withheld anything, we are well within pre trial guidelines, and are not in violation of court orders.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:05 p.m.
Here are the DMs, prepare to be unamused
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:06 p.m.
Doogy 2024-11-21 08:07 p.m.
Also, in the future(not this one, I'll accept it), please have the case number at the front of the PDF name and you do not have to include the case name.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:07 p.m.
Also, in reference to I believe Discovery Number 8, the Inspector General's office never opened a case into the previous nexuvz case, as they alleged in their motion
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:07 p.m.
We have nothing to disclose in regards to that
Doogy 2024-11-21 08:08 p.m.
what # is discovery 8
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:08 p.m.
i honestly don't know
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:08 p.m.
there are so many
Doogy 2024-11-21 08:08 p.m.
#013, ok
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:09 p.m.
And to address most of the other motions, All two or three motions related to notjedi0652 were addressed in the discovery filing. MBI and DOJ elated requests to transcripts were addressed in the discovery filing.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:10 p.m.
I don't believe there are any other pending requests
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:25 p.m.@Doogy Your Honor, I am formally notifying the Court that the defense will be filing a motion to dismiss, as early as tomorrow afternoon, based on egregious government misconduct and blatant discovery violations—issues that have become undeniable after these recent disclosures. This motion will detail serious allegations of witness coaching and tampering, the State's repeated untimeliness, clear violations of Brady and defiance of court orders, and the withholding of key exhibits that were compelled. And let me be clear—those exhibits, which we now have in our possession, were not provided by the State. We had to uncover them on our own. We have definitive proof, and tomorrow, we’ll lay it all out for the Court.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:26 p.m.
It's a scandal! Orrrrrr, probably just concjecture
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:27 p.m.
Witness coaching???
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:27 p.m.@Doogy And I don't appreciate the comment just now given the accusation I have just lodged.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:28 p.m.
The State gave you everything you requested, in accordance with the timeline we said we could supply them. The moment I was off work was when you got the disclosure, any previous responses were done via phone. Nothing was withheld, we requested the court rule prior to us turning them over, simply because we were not even in a position to do so until later that evening.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:29 p.m.
We never violated the Discovery schedule, nor the pre-trial schedule. The witness was not coached, because the State never once told him what to write in his affidavit. In fact if you check the DM history, you will see several times where I encourage him to use his own words, and that I 'would not be changing' any of his responses.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:31 p.m.
You did not "uncover" them on your own, we provided them less than 24 hours after the original conversations took place.
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:31 p.m.
It is also likely that we will file a motion for contempt alongside the motion to dismiss based on violation of the Brady order.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:31 p.m.
We violated no court orders
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:32 p.m.
Do you wanna mention whatever parts of your fifty motions you still want, or have we satisified you now?
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:32 p.m.
I can't keep track with all the requests
Deleted UserWe violated no court orders
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:34 p.m.
Before that, I would like you to identify which material in your discovery is Brady material.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:35 p.m.
The two transcripts, the affidavit from MBI saying he isn't a Confidential Informant, and the criminal records you requested
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:35 p.m.@Doogy We are also waiting on a ruling on Mot. Seq. #002 and #003
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:36 p.m.
I don't think you can rule on those without conducting voir dire on the individual in question
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:36 p.m.
from what I can remember of the two motions contents
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:37 p.m.
002 had to do with the statutory elements
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:37 p.m.
And the construction of 1302
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:37 p.m.
003 was the jury dismissal motion
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:38 p.m.
Oh yeah those
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:38 p.m.
I thought they were getting ruled on yesterday
DoogyAlright so; #001 - ruled on #002 - pending #003 - pending #004 - moot #005 - pending #006 - pending #007 - pending #008 - moot #009 - pending #010 - pending #011 - pending #012 - ...
Doogy 2024-11-21 08:41 p.m.@impactiii
DoogyDeleted User 2024-11-21 08:42 p.m.
Do you have an update on the ruling for motions 2 and 3
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:47 p.m.
Alright, I hate to add to the mountain of motions, but I'm just gonna note that this is only our second one. I'll have a motion to compel filed either this evening or tomorrow, in relation to the Defendant's failure to comply with ajudicated civil settlements
Deleted UserAlright, I hate to add to the mountain of motions, but I'm just gonna note that this is only our second one. I'll have a motion to compel filed either this evening or tomorrow, in ...
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:50 p.m.
Civil settlements?
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:51 p.m.
This will be notated in our motion, but to the State's knowledge the Defendant has failed to comply with the following;
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1btvmqb95irg02xavSmS7Qe6gMpHY2F8I/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1btvmqb95irg02xavSmS7Qe6gMpHY2F8I/view
Deleted UserThis will be notated in our motion, but to the State's knowledge the Defendant has failed to comply with the following; https://drive.google.com/file/d/1btvmqb95irg02xavSmS7Qe6gM...
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:55 p.m.
If that’s the case, you will have to petition for an enforcement proceeding
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:55 p.m.
That won’t be dealt with here
impactiiiIf that’s the case, you will have to petition for an enforcement proceeding
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:55 p.m.
I believe that’s how it goes
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:55 p.m.
I don't think it's spelled out
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:55 p.m.
Ask Kezerra
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:55 p.m.
He might know
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:55 p.m.
Or let the judge on that case know
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:56 p.m.
The ROP are unforuntely vague in this area
Doogy 2024-11-21 08:56 p.m.
Ruling on the motion to dismiss (defendant's motion seq #002) has been posted rulings .
DoogyRuling on the motion to dismiss (defendant's motion seq #002) has been posted rulings .
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:57 p.m.
My issue with that is you say the definition of corrupt intent is easily accessible yet you had to turn to a common-law definition to understand it. That’s precisely what I was arguing
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:57 p.m.
Anyways
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:58 p.m.
I actually supplied the definition for you
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:58 p.m.
Merriam-Webster
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:58 p.m.
why didn't you read my response!!!!!
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:58 p.m.
I read every page of your motions
Deleted User 2024-11-21 08:58 p.m.
hurts my feelings
impactiiiMy issue with that is you say the definition of corrupt intent is easily accessible yet you had to turn to a common-law definition to understand it. That’s precisely what I was arg...
impactiii 2024-11-21 08:59 p.m.
Just seems a little antithetical
impactiiiMy issue with that is you say the definition of corrupt intent is easily accessible yet you had to turn to a common-law definition to understand it. That’s precisely what I was arg...
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:00 p.m.
I simply clarified that the language present in the criminal information is written in an ordinary meaning as being reasonably interpreted in a manner to satisfy the requirement of "corrupt intent", and then included Aguilar to provide case law to support it as well.
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:00 p.m.
Wait
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:00 p.m.
A challenge for vagueness is challenging the statute itself
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:00 p.m.
Just because you brought up Aguilar in your interpretation doesn't mean it cannot be interpreted in a different light to satisfy a separate perspective.
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:00 p.m.
It doesn’t challenge the language in the CI
impactiiiA challenge for vagueness is challenging the statute itself
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:01 p.m.
That was addressed as well
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:01 p.m.
If I recall correctly
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:01 p.m.
Have you read it in its entirety yet
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:01 p.m.
you included the CI in your motion
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:01 p.m.
The motion was split into two separate points
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:01 p.m.
All aspects were addressed I believe.
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:02 p.m.
Oh, I see where you may be able to confuse my wording with a different meaning
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:02 p.m.
I'll amend it to provide clarity
DoogyOh, I see where you may be able to confuse my wording with a different meaning
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:03 p.m.
Also
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:03 p.m.
Some points weren’t reached like whether or not 1302 only applies to strictly traditionally corrupt acts
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:03 p.m.
You can view the subheaders
urinal cake 2024-11-21 09:03 p.m. 
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:03 p.m.
ello
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:03 p.m.
please
urinal cake 2024-11-21 09:03 p.m.
Hi
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:03 p.m.
no
urinal cake 2024-11-21 09:04 p.m.
DoogyI'll amend it to provide clarity
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:05 p.m.
Could we expect a ruling on the third motion this evening?
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:07 p.m.
No
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:07 p.m.
Probably not
urinal cakeClick to see attachment.
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:07 p.m.
That was in reference to the motion to compel and preserve but alright
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:07 p.m.
Amended ruling posted rulings sorry about confusion
DoogyProbably not
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:07 p.m.
Could I get the court's advisement on an issue pertaining to the Defendant
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:09 p.m.
The Defendant was previously ordered to pay civil damages in relation to this matter, via a DOJ-ordered arbitration, in accordance with 5 M.S.C. 3203.2(a). However, he has failed to fulfill his obligations to do so.
Given that no prior judge handled this matter, and that there is no procedural guidelines, would the court ask that we file a grievance with the clerk of court to seek a hearing, or is the court capable of hearing a motion to compel in this matter?
Given that no prior judge handled this matter, and that there is no procedural guidelines, would the court ask that we file a grievance with the clerk of court to seek a hearing, or is the court capable of hearing a motion to compel in this matter?
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:09 p.m.
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:09 p.m.
It would have to be an enforcement proceeding
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:09 p.m.
Not in this case
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:10 p.m.
Well, my issue lies in the lack of procedural clarity. Enforcement proceedings are enumerated in federal procedure
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:10 p.m.
There are not details as to the State's recourse in this matter
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:11 p.m.
So how does the DOJ even enforce arbitration
impactiii 2024-11-21 09:11 p.m.
Very strange
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:11 p.m.
5 M.S.C. 3203.2(a)
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:12 p.m.
Per the State Statute, the enforcement is binding, as a matter of law.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:12 p.m.
I'll probably just end up having the Solicitor General's Office file a matter civilly. But, I wanted the court's clarification before we proceeded further. Given, that this stems from the case in question
Deleted UserDoogy 2024-11-21 09:13 p.m.
Is this referring to an arbitration matter or a previously filed case
DoogyIs this referring to an arbitration matter or a previously filed case
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:13 p.m.
Arbitration matter related to this case
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:13 p.m.
Related to this case?
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:14 p.m.
The State is seeking the court's advisement on enforcement, given the unique nature of the matter
DoogyRelated to this case?
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:14 p.m.
Correct, the arbitration stems from this case
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:14 p.m.
That seems to be a civil matter though.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:14 p.m.
Correct, hence the dilemma
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:14 p.m.
So it would be unrelated.
Doogy 2024-11-21 09:14 p.m.
Separate matter.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 09:14 p.m.
Alright, I'll just consult with SGO
impactiii 2024-11-21 10:22 p.m.@Doogy Seeing as I am now the Attorney General-nominee, I move to withdraw as counsel and move that the Court direct court-appointed counsel @AdamC_2001 to assist Mr. nexuvz.
impactiii 2024-11-21 10:22 p.m.
Thank you!!!!!!!!!!
impactiiiDoogy 2024-11-21 10:24 p.m.
Are you though? I haven't seen any nomination from the Governor
impactiii 2024-11-21 10:24 p.m.
He's typing up the letter
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:24 p.m.
I think it’s a grey area
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:24 p.m.
In any regard
impactiii 2024-11-21 10:24 p.m.
He already confirmed it to me privately
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:24 p.m.
He’s the acting AG
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:24 p.m.
Which means he’s employed by the DOJ
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:24 p.m.
So therefore he would break DOJ policy to work on this case
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:25 p.m.
Well
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:25 p.m.
I take that back
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:25 p.m.
He hasn’t signed any documentation yet
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:25 p.m.
Like I said, grey area
impactiii 2024-11-21 10:35 p.m.@Doogy Nomination is official now
Doogy 2024-11-21 10:42 p.m.
Alright. @impactiii is hereby withdrawn from the case. The Court appoints Public Defender @AdamC_2001 to represent the Defendant. Naturally, the Defendant has a right to choose alternative counsel if that is their desire, but for now to ensure effective representation, Mr. Sherman will act as their counsel.
Doogy 2024-11-21 10:43 p.m.@AdamC_2001 added and @impactiii removed.
Doogy 2024-11-21 10:43 p.m.
cc: @nexus
AdamC_2001 2024-11-21 10:44 p.m.
Uhhhhhhh
AdamC_2001 2024-11-21 10:44 p.m.
I don’t have time for this case I got a giant case already in the process and many others
AdamC_2001I don’t have time for this case I got a giant case already in the process and many others
Doogy 2024-11-21 10:45 p.m.
There is a ton of pending action already so do not fret, once pretrial ends there will still be probably some sort of extension or delay prior to any trial, if we reach that point. Nonetheless, I'd suggest just reviewing the proceedings channel contents to familiarize with the case and decide if you wish to pursue any action or not.
AdamC_2001 2024-11-21 10:46 p.m.
Keep his motions on track
AdamC_2001 2024-11-21 10:50 p.m.
If the state withholds evidence and it’s clear that Brady has been violated I see no reason not to file a motion to dismiss but I’ll see how the courts handle the situation regarding the previous motions filed
AdamC_2001 2024-11-21 10:50 p.m.
allow me to play catch up
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:50 p.m.
The State has gone behind its butt to provide stuff we don’t even intend to use just to appease defense counsel. Just noting that
AdamC_2001 2024-11-21 10:51 p.m.
That should be the standard
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:51 p.m.
Over half of what’s in the discovery was never and will never be used at trial
AdamC_2001That should be the standard
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:51 p.m.
It is, but we had baseless allegations to the contrary, which prompted us to silence them
AdamC_2001 2024-11-21 10:51 p.m.
Well it allows the defense to create a proper defense against these charges
AdamC_2001 2024-11-21 10:52 p.m.
My client deserves to have every opportunity to defend himself against these allegations against him
AdamC_2001 2024-11-21 10:53 p.m.
Like I said I’ll allow the courts and the state to reply and whatnot on those current morons already filed by your potential new boss
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:53 p.m.
We agree, which is why we think the motions were funny. We had not even referenced the MBI or DOJ transcripts in question, we were going off the affidavit and the evidence, that’s it. Ironically, through their demand for disclosures we had to go through material that the State never intended to use in the first place
AdamC_2001 2024-11-21 10:53 p.m.
Motions *
AdamC_2001 2024-11-21 10:54 p.m.
But was it not part of your investigation?
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:55 p.m.
Not mine, nope. This is the second filing of the case, and I had no knowledge of the material in question. Nor, do I really want/need what was requested. Transcripts are burdensome, RARELY have anything important, and waste my time
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:55 p.m.
The State’s case is based entirely on the evidence disclosed and the testimony of those who were there. Nothing more, nothing less
AdamC_2001 2024-11-21 10:55 p.m.
Transcripts of you talking to a witness to testify against my client or what we talking about here
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:57 p.m.
That was separate from the initial disclosure, and was submitted less than 24hours after they took place. The State didn’t have a problem disclosing them, we simply noted their unremarkable nature. I made initial contact with the witness yesterday afternoon, and the disclosure was turned in like 16 hours after we concluded the conversation.
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:57 p.m.
Again, no attempt to hide Brady evidence has occurred, it’s conjecture.
AdamC_2001 2024-11-21 10:58 p.m.
Well if there’s already a motion on that I’ll let the court decide
AdamC_2001 2024-11-21 10:58 p.m.
If not well I’m not like sado I don’t wanna drag nonsense on for ages
AdamC_2001Well if there’s already a motion on that I’ll let the court decide
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:59 p.m.
It’s a prior motion for broad requests, which we contend to have fully disclosed
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:59 p.m.
There’s so many through
Deleted User 2024-11-21 10:59 p.m.
Though
AdamC_2001 2024-11-21 11:08 p.m.
Interesting
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 12:31 p.m.
When can we expect the rulings on the previous motions
Deleted User 2024-11-22 02:49 p.m.
yeah ^
Deleted User 2024-11-22 02:49 p.m.
Pre trial ends tomorrow if I recall correctly
Deleted User 2024-11-22 02:49 p.m.
or maybe it's Sunday
Doogy 2024-11-22 02:57 p.m.
It ends Sunday but with so much pending actions I'll likely extend it if necessary.
DoogyIt ends Sunday but with so much pending actions I'll likely extend it if necessary.
Deleted User 2024-11-22 02:58 p.m.
Does the court potentially have a timeline on the rulings for te pending motions
Deleted User 2024-11-22 02:58 p.m.
the
DoogyIt ends Sunday but with so much pending actions I'll likely extend it if necessary.
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 02:59 p.m.
I believe you should I don’t want those motions to go u heard
Doogy 2024-11-22 03:00 p.m.
Well either way the pending actions would be handled. The extension of pretrial is only for the possibility of if anything new arises based on the outcome of the pending actions.
Deleted User 2024-11-22 03:01 p.m.
If we had rulings by Sunday, I think both myself and defense counsel could notify the court if the need for an extension of pre trial is necessary
Deleted User 2024-11-22 03:01 p.m.@AdamC_2001 You agree?
Doogy 2024-11-22 03:01 p.m.
#001 - ruled on
#002 - ruled on
#003 - pending
#004 - moot
#005 - pending
#006 - pending
#007 - pending
#008 - moot
#009 - pending
#010 - pending
#011 - pending
#012 - moot
#013 - pending
#014 - pending
motion for subpoena - pending
#002 - ruled on
#003 - pending
#004 - moot
#005 - pending
#006 - pending
#007 - pending
#008 - moot
#009 - pending
#010 - pending
#011 - pending
#012 - moot
#013 - pending
#014 - pending
motion for subpoena - pending
Doogy 2024-11-22 03:01 p.m.
this is the current status of pending motions
Doogy 2024-11-22 03:02 p.m.
I'll probably have up to #012 handled by tomorrow
Deleted User 2024-11-22 03:02 p.m.
I believe all pending, except for my motion for subpoena, are in reference to discovery
Doogy 2024-11-22 03:02 p.m.
yes, the majority of them that have not already been considered moot will likely be ruled on collectively due to their topic
Doogy 2024-11-22 03:02 p.m.
which is why I'm somewhat confident saying up to #012 will be done by tomorrow
Deleted User 2024-11-22 03:02 p.m.
If it simplifies it for the court
Deleted User 2024-11-22 03:03 p.m.
I'll be available for a hearing, either discord, vc, or in person, tomorrow. If that would help clarify the record as to a) what was requested and b) what was provided
Deleted User 2024-11-22 03:03 p.m.
I think it would save a lot of time for all parties
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 03:08 p.m.
Probably gonna extend pretrial as I’m clearly behind on this case and don’t want to put myself and my client at a disadvantage
Deleted User 2024-11-22 03:08 p.m.
Are you willing to do a hearing on the discovery motions?
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 03:09 p.m.
no
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 03:09 p.m.
Let the judge rule on them
Deleted User 2024-11-22 03:09 p.m.
At all, or within the next few days?
AdamC_2001Let the judge rule on them
Deleted User 2024-11-22 03:09 p.m.
He's still gonna rule, it was just to all get on the same page
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 03:09 p.m.
I haven’t even spoke to my new client yet
Deleted User 2024-11-22 03:09 p.m.
I would still want him to review the motions again once we all understand what they are pertaining to
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 03:11 p.m.
So I’ll take the motions sado filed at face value and want the courts to deem what’s necessary based on arguments given
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 03:12 p.m.
I don’t even know if I’ll be staying per his request
Deleted User 2024-11-22 03:12 p.m.
I completely agree, I don't think you understand what I mean by hearing. I think it would be beneficial to everyone if we sat down and could go through each motion, so we are on the same page as to what they are requesting, and then review what the State submitted.
Deleted User 2024-11-22 03:13 p.m.
And then after we understand the current state of all the motions, the court can proceed to make their rulings
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 03:14 p.m.
driving home brb
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 04:55 p.m.
ok
Deleted UserI completely agree, I don't think you understand what I mean by hearing. I think it would be beneficial to everyone if we sat down and could go through each motion, so we are on th...
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 09:21 p.m.
sure
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 09:21 p.m.
sounds fair
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:22 p.m.
Aight bet, @Doogy Can we schedule something for tomorrow
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:22 p.m.
I’m free all day except for early morning
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 09:22 p.m.
uhhhhhhhhhh
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 09:22 p.m.
idk about tomorrow I have another case but we could see
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:22 p.m.
I think the hearing would be pretty short
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:22 p.m.
Just looking at what the motions are
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:23 p.m.
And evaluating what the State has provided
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 09:23 p.m.
You provided a CI and responces to his motions
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 09:23 p.m.
what do I get get
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:23 p.m.
We filed discovery
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 09:23 p.m.
not
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:23 p.m.
Too
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:24 p.m.
Again there are so many motions I think it’s best to just break them down one by one
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:24 p.m.
I believe we covered everything he asked for in the 12 motions
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:24 p.m.
But that can best be determined by going through them
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 09:28 p.m.
this guy is an alt
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 09:28 p.m.
crazy
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 09:28 p.m.
he even a citizen
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:28 p.m.
It’s within the game rules
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:29 p.m.
At the time he was only acting in the capacity of his alt, and the events had no correlation to his main account
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:29 p.m.
We’ve enclosed an affidavit
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:30 p.m.
Along with another affidavit from investigators, confirming his alt is not a CIA
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:30 p.m.
CI*
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 09:31 p.m.
your tipline transcript is broken
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 09:31 p.m.
I urge you to toss it
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:34 p.m.
It’s blank because there’s nothing in it
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:35 p.m.
I can send you a picture of the actual tip
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 09:35 p.m.
its legit a long line of yapping code
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:35 p.m.
But there was never any discussion
AdamC_2001its legit a long line of yapping code
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:35 p.m.
You didn’t open it right
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 09:35 p.m.
I clicked on it
AdamC_2001 2024-11-22 09:35 p.m. 
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:35 p.m.
You gotta open the file in a browser tab
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:36 p.m.
Not the file itself
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:36 p.m.
I made the same mistake
Deleted User 2024-11-22 09:36 p.m.
I’m not tech savvy
Doogy 2024-11-22 10:42 p.m.
Ruling on motion to dismiss (#003) posted rulings .
@Deleted User @AdamC_2001
Deleted User 2024-11-22 10:44 p.m.
Thanks
Deleted User 2024-11-22 10:44 p.m.
I believe we agreed to a hearing
Deleted User 2024-11-22 10:44 p.m.
If we can coordinate a time that works for everyone
Doogy 2024-11-22 11:05 p.m.
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER ONE(Seq #004) - denied as moot.
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS(Seq #005) - deniedsua sponte . The State has provided their discovery document within the prescribed timeframe.
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER TWO(Seq #006) -@Deleted User this motion requests communications related to conversation established or suggesting witness "notjedi0625" is an alternative account. Is there anything else to disclose for this other than the screenshot transcripts you sent here? https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1304113334467035227/1309324054540582913
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER THREE(Seq #007) - denied as moot. This information is present in the discovery document provided by the State.
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER FOUR(Seq #008) - denied as moot.
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER FIVE(Seq #009) - denied as moot. The State's discovery has provided all submitted exhibits and the Court finds no reason to believe otherwise. In addition, the State has already put it on the record that "No other video,[sic] to [their] knowledge exists".
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER SIX(Seq #010) - denied as moot. The State has provided the chat logs from the DoJ and MBI discussing the filing of this case in their discovery.
BRADY V. MARYLAND MOTION(Seq #011) -@Deleted User Has all evidence been disclosed, including evidence that was previously entered into the record for the prior case State of Mayflower v. nexuvz, CR-0012-24?
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER SEVEN(Seq #012) - denied as moot. The State has provided this content in the discovery document.
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER EIGHT(Seq #013) -@Deleted User Is there any evidence that has not already been disclosed relevant to any tip or complaint made through a reporting system to the DoJ Inspector General's Office related to this matter?
PLEA IN BAR(Seq #014) - deniedsua sponte . There has been no violation of discovery timeframe to justify dismissal of the case with prejudice or any other means of barring further prosecution in this matter. There has been no compelling evidence to prove any prosecutorial misconduct or failure to comply with Brady obligations from the State. In addition, the requested material has been supplied in the State's discovery.
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS(Seq #005) - denied
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER TWO(Seq #006) -
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER THREE(Seq #007) - denied as moot. This information is present in the discovery document provided by the State.
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER FOUR(Seq #008) - denied as moot.
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER FIVE(Seq #009) - denied as moot. The State's discovery has provided all submitted exhibits and the Court finds no reason to believe otherwise. In addition, the State has already put it on the record that "No other video,
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER SIX(Seq #010) - denied as moot. The State has provided the chat logs from the DoJ and MBI discussing the filing of this case in their discovery.
BRADY V. MARYLAND MOTION(Seq #011) -
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER SEVEN(Seq #012) - denied as moot. The State has provided this content in the discovery document.
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NUMBER EIGHT(Seq #013) -
PLEA IN BAR(Seq #014) - denied
Doogy 2024-11-22 11:05 p.m.
cc: @AdamC_2001
Deleted User 2024-11-22 11:06 p.m.
I’ll reply specifically in the morning, but tldr we’ve supplied everything requested. I’ll itemize each one you tagged me for and an explanation in the morning.
Doogy 2024-11-22 11:08 p.m.
Okay, sounds good. I figured this was easier than planning a hearing. That way it's still asynchronus, provides clarification and allows the defense an opportunity to interject if ncessary.
Doogy 2024-11-22 11:08 p.m.
necessary*
Deleted User 2024-11-22 11:08 p.m.
Yeah, I appreciate it
Deleted User 2024-11-22 11:09 p.m.
Also noting for the record that the defense and state discussed a plea deal which we both agreed would fairly encompass the facts of the case, however the defendant rejected the state’s offer. Just noting that for the record.
Doogy 2024-11-22 11:12 p.m.
Okay
Deleted User 2024-11-22 11:31 p.m.
Motion 6 - State disclosed its entire DM history with mr “nothedi0652” in a filing submitted to the court.
Motion 11 - To my knowledge all previous evidence was admitted as discovery and we have fulfilled this request.
Motion 13 - The Inspector General’s Office has no record of any case being opened, per my conversations with the IG himself.
cc:@Doogy @AdamC_2001
Motion 11 - To my knowledge all previous evidence was admitted as discovery and we have fulfilled this request.
Motion 13 - The Inspector General’s Office has no record of any case being opened, per my conversations with the IG himself.
cc:
Deleted User 2024-11-22 11:32 p.m.
I’m going to bed
Doogy 2024-11-22 11:36 p.m.
Defense counsel, if there are any objections or statements to contest the statements by the State made in response to the Court's questions regarding the contents requested in the motions, please state them.
urinal cake 2024-11-23 10:36 a.m.@Doogy i'd like to withdraw from the case seeing as my bar license has been SUSPENDED for 10 days.
Doogy 2024-11-23 10:49 a.m.@urinal cake removed due to withdraw.
DoogyDefense counsel, if there are any objections or statements to contest the statements by the State made in response to the Court's questions regarding the contents requested in the ...
Deleted User 2024-11-23 11:03 a.m.@AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2024-11-23 03:51 p.m.
yea
AdamC_2001 2024-11-23 03:52 p.m.
Did the state disclose that his alt account is used for crimes against Law Enforcement?
AdamC_2001 2024-11-23 03:53 p.m.
Frankly a crime alt is something that should be disclosed due to the grounds of United States v. Cervantes-Pacheco, 826 F.2d 310 (5th Cir. 1987)
AdamC_2001 2024-11-23 03:54 p.m.
If I'm wrong please let me know
AdamC_2001Did the state disclose that his alt account is used for crimes against Law Enforcement?
Deleted User 2024-11-23 04:08 p.m.
The status of his account is irrelevant. He is still entitled to the rights afforded by the Constitution and laws of the State of Mayflower. However, we did in fact disclose his criminal record to the Defense.
Deleted User 2024-11-23 04:08 p.m.
That additional disclosure should be attached to the court record and the trello card
Deleted User 2024-11-23 04:09 p.m.
It’s also included in the affidavit
Deleted User 2024-11-23 04:11 p.m.
But again, we want to emphasize that his criminal record is irrelevant. He is not on trial, rather the actions of the defendant are what’s at-issue
Deleted UserMotion 6 - State disclosed its entire DM history with mr “nothedi0652” in a filing submitted to the court. Motion 11 - To my knowledge all previous evidence was admitted as disco...
AdamC_2001 2024-11-23 04:49 p.m.
motion 13 can I have that in writing
AdamC_2001 2024-11-23 04:50 p.m.
thanks
Deleted User 2024-11-23 04:50 p.m.
It's in a disclsoure, let me go reply to it
Deleted UserDeleted User 2024-11-23 04:50 p.m.
Here they are
Deleted User 2024-11-23 04:50 p.m.
We also enclosed an affidavit in support from Mr. notjedi0652 in our discovery filing
Deleted User 2024-11-23 04:50 p.m.@AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2024-11-23 04:51 p.m.
no
AdamC_2001 2024-11-23 04:51 p.m.
IG office saying no new case was opened and your convo with the ig himself
AdamC_2001 2024-11-23 04:51 p.m.
unless thats already in discovery
Deleted User 2024-11-23 04:52 p.m.
It's not because it was a five second discussion with the IG, I'm not wasting an entire disclosure on him saying there was no case
Deleted User 2024-11-23 04:52 p.m.
I can attest under penalty of perjury, and as an officer of the court that the IG confirmed no case was generated.
AdamC_2001 2024-11-23 04:54 p.m.
a five second convo if related to this criminal matter still should be disclosed under discovery it dont matter if you said his new suit looks great if you're talking to him about this case I wanna know what you said
AdamC_2001 2024-11-23 04:55 p.m.
and what he said
Deleted User 2024-11-23 04:56 p.m.
You have a right to see it, if and only if, the materials are potentially exculpatory. Seeing as he verified no IG case ever existed, then the nature of your request is moot. It's a complete and total waste of my time to prepare a disclosure for a non-issue. It's not like I can now surpsise you with an IG case transcript at trial.
Deleted User 2024-11-23 04:57 p.m.
The exculpatory nature of our conversation would be created if he informed me of the opposite; that such a case with his office did, in fact, occur.
Deleted User 2024-11-23 07:31 p.m.@AdamC_2001
Deleted User 2024-11-24 09:20 p.m.@AdamC_2001 @Doogy Pre trial ended
Doogy 2024-11-24 09:44 p.m.
Yes, I need to rule on the motion to subpoena, but in the meantime we can begin to schedule for trial.
DoogyYes, I need to rule on the motion to subpoena, but in the meantime we can begin to schedule for trial.
Deleted User 2024-11-24 09:44 p.m.
Are you going to want an in game trial?
Doogy 2024-11-24 09:44 p.m.
Preferably.
Deleted User 2024-11-24 09:45 p.m.
Okay, the earliest I can do is this weekend, given the holiday. If we can do it over discord I’m more flexible.
Deleted User 2024-11-26 10:27 a.m.@AdamC_2001 @Doogy
AdamC_2001 2024-11-26 10:30 a.m.
yes hello
AdamC_2001yes hello
Deleted User 2024-11-26 10:31 a.m.
Any availability
AdamC_2001 2024-11-26 10:31 a.m.
For what trial or this hearing
Deleted User 2024-11-26 10:31 a.m.
Pre trial ended, we are scheduling trial
AdamC_2001 2024-11-26 10:31 a.m.
Insee
AdamC_2001 2024-11-26 10:31 a.m.
I see
AdamC_2001 2024-11-26 10:31 a.m.
kk
AdamC_2001kk
Deleted User 2024-11-26 10:32 a.m.
Does in-game work for you? If not, are you good with a scheduled discord trial?
AdamC_2001 2024-11-26 10:33 a.m.
I can do in game if you need
AdamC_2001 2024-11-26 10:33 a.m.
Any day after 5pm really
Deleted User 2024-11-26 10:33 a.m.
I’m not in favor of it, just given logistics
Deleted User 2024-11-26 10:33 a.m.
I’d much rather do discord
Deleted User 2024-11-26 10:33 a.m.
Even if we are all present
AdamC_2001 2024-11-26 10:35 a.m.
whatever works
Deleted User 2024-11-26 10:35 a.m.
Alright I’ll wait and see if the judge will oblige
Deleted User 2024-11-26 10:36 a.m.@AdamC_2001 Have you talked anymore with your client regarding the plea deal the State offered?
Doogy 2024-11-26 10:38 a.m.
In game is far superior.
DoogyIn game is far superior.
Deleted User 2024-11-26 10:39 a.m.
I understand the benefits, I’d just ask that we conduct a scheduled discord trial. Given the holiday coming up, and the fact that my availability can sometimes be unpredictable
DoogyIn game is far superior.
AdamC_2001 2024-11-26 10:43 a.m.
Not when we got shot up like 3 times
AdamC_2001 2024-11-26 10:43 a.m.
in a previous case we held
Doogy 2024-11-26 10:54 a.m.
It’s still way better
Doogy 2024-11-26 10:54 a.m.
We’ll probably do it after the holidays so next week.
DoogyWe’ll probably do it after the holidays so next week.
Deleted User 2024-11-26 10:58 a.m.
I’d love to do it by the end of this weekend if possible
Deleted User 2024-11-26 10:58 a.m.
There are just so many pending cases
AdamC_2001 2024-11-26 10:58 a.m.
I got a trial that could potentially interfere but I can try
Deleted User 2024-11-26 11:01 a.m.
I would really prefer discord
Doogy 2024-11-26 02:57 p.m.
In game is much much better and organized. I’m going to say we’ll have to schedule this sometime this weekend(within my availability) or next week due to the holiday.
Doogy 2024-11-26 02:57 p.m.
I’ll rule on the subpoena today.
DoogyIn game is much much better and organized. I’m going to say we’ll have to schedule this sometime this weekend(within my availability) or next week due to the holiday.
Deleted User 2024-11-26 03:02 p.m.
Is the court open to discord if both myself and defense counsel are in agreement for it
AdamC_2001 2024-11-26 03:50 p.m.
Like I said game or discord does not bother me one bit
Doogy 2024-11-27 02:15 p.m.
What is the perceived benefit of doing it in discord though?
Deleted User 2024-11-27 02:15 p.m.
Speed, efficiency, etc. We could definitely get it done faster. Not to mention without the headache of interruptions
Deleted UserSpeed, efficiency, etc. We could definitely get it done faster. Not to mention without the headache of interruptions
Doogy 2024-11-29 01:48 p.m.
It’s actually quicker in game where everyone has immediate attention. Discord trial proceedings tend to have massive delays due to people focusing on side tasks or losing focus.
DoogyI’ll rule on the subpoena today.
Doogy 2024-11-29 01:48 p.m.
and by “today” I mean today.
Deleted User 2024-11-29 03:01 p.m.
Just letting the court know; I’ve moved into a different position within the DOJ, and as such different counsel will need to be appointed to represent this case. Given the state of flux we are in without an AG or DAG, I don’t have the power to assign another DOJ attorney to this case. Would the court please direct a State Attorney to be allocated?
Deleted User 2024-11-29 03:01 p.m.@Doogy
Doogy 2024-11-29 09:08 p.m.
That's the DoJ's responsibility.
AdamC_2001 2024-11-29 09:12 p.m.
yea
AdamC_2001 2024-11-29 09:13 p.m.
what he said!!
Deleted User 2024-11-29 09:14 p.m.
Im doing my due diligence to inform the court that I have no way to get new counsel assigned. So, this may need to get delayed until the new AG is confirmed.
Deleted User 2024-11-30 05:20 p.m.@Doogy @taxi has been assigned as state's counsel
Doogy 2024-12-03 10:09 a.m.
Waiting on a filed NoA for the new state attorney.
Doogy 2024-12-05 12:19 p.m.@xolaaz added.
Doogy 2024-12-05 12:20 p.m.
We are scheduling for trial currently as pretrial has ended.
xolaaz 2024-12-06 04:54 p.m.
Ok
Doogyxolaaz 2024-12-06 05:09 p.m.
im gonna step back from this, operator taxi will be coming in with an noa and as primary counsel
xolaazim gonna step back from this, operator taxi will be coming in with an noa and as primary counsel
xolaaz 2024-12-06 05:10 p.m.
ill retain secondary counselor for now
Doogy 2024-12-06 05:22 p.m.
Roger
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2024-12-07 11:54 p.m.@taxi has filed a notice of appearance and has been added.
Doogy 2024-12-09 03:13 p.m.
Welcome. We are still trying to schedule for trial.
AdamC_2001 2024-12-10 12:30 a.m.
yes
AdamC_2001 2024-12-10 12:30 a.m.
I'll be out of town this saturday
AdamC_2001 2024-12-10 12:30 a.m.
but I attempt to anytime this week
taxi 2024-12-10 10:47 a.m.
Alright
taxi 2024-12-10 10:49 a.m.
When are you and your client available @AdamC_2001
AdamC_2001 2024-12-10 10:51 a.m.
I’ll have to ask him
AdamC_2001 2024-12-10 10:52 a.m.
But I’m available everyday after 5pm est
taxi 2024-12-11 03:08 p.m.@AdamC_2001 @Doogy Ok can we do 5pm est saturday
taxi 2024-12-11 03:08 p.m.
thats when my first witness is free
Doogy 2024-12-11 03:37 p.m.
That's not within my availability.
AdamC_2001 2024-12-11 04:45 p.m.
I guess Sunday whenever youre available
taxi 2024-12-12 10:45 a.m.
I can’t do Sundays
taxi 2024-12-12 10:46 a.m.
How about Friday same time @AdamC_2001 @Doogy
taxi 2024-12-12 01:49 p.m.
nvm witness cant
Doogy 2024-12-14 01:25 p.m.
Please choose a time within my availability found in my chamber information. Be advised though that Tuesday I cannot do it if that’s consideration.
Doogy 2024-12-14 01:25 p.m.
This upcoming Tuesday.
taxi 2024-12-15 04:46 p.m.@Doogy @AdamC_2001 Can we do Thursday 5PM EST?
Doogy 2024-12-20 10:22 p.m.
If it's within my availability, then assume it is fine for me. You guys have to work out times that work for the both of you please.
taxi 2024-12-27 11:28 a.m.
Guys
taxi 2024-12-27 11:28 a.m.
we should really schedule
taxi 2024-12-27 03:06 p.m.
Witness is unavailable till after 6th jan
taxi 2024-12-27 04:21 p.m.
Case being handed over to @JaroCycle
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2024-12-28 09:50 p.m.@JaroCycle has been added
JaroCycle 2024-12-30 04:32 p.m.@morale
For the court information, we are in the process of negotiating an agreement, if we won't reach one, then we can continue with the arraignment.
For the court information, we are in the process of negotiating an agreement, if we won't reach one, then we can continue with the arraignment.
JaroCycle 2024-12-30 04:33 p.m.
I can make a timely submission, so we can get the best timing for all of us.
Doogy 2024-12-30 05:01 p.m.
Uhhh, you might be looking at the wrong case. @JaroCycle
Doogy 2024-12-30 05:02 p.m.
We're at trial scheduling for this (and unfortunately have been for quite some time due to attorney switching and the holidays).
Doogy 2024-12-30 05:02 p.m.
Long past pre-trial and arraignment.
DoogyWe're at trial scheduling for this (and unfortunately have been for quite some time due to attorney switching and the holidays).
JaroCycle 2024-12-30 05:15 p.m.
Bruh
JaroCycle 2024-12-30 05:15 p.m.
Alright
JaroCycle 2024-12-30 05:15 p.m.
When can we do it then
Doogy 2024-12-30 05:16 p.m.
Broken record at this point but anytime within my availability posted here https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1274202189317013571
Doogy 2024-12-30 05:16 p.m.
You and @AdamC_2001 please schedule a time.
AdamC_2001 2024-12-30 05:25 p.m.
Okay
AdamC_2001 2024-12-30 05:26 p.m.
What about friday around 7
JaroCycle 2024-12-31 05:25 a.m.
That’s a bit tough for me cause I am GMT+1
JaroCycle 2024-12-31 05:25 a.m.
So I would prefer to do it either at 4 or 5 pm est
JaroCycle 2025-01-01 06:05 p.m.@AdamC_2001 @Doogy
JaroCycle 2025-01-01 06:05 p.m.
How about this friday at 5 pm?(edited)
AdamC_2001 2025-01-01 06:15 p.m.
Due to unforeseen circumstances friday might not be the best for me nor this weekend but i can absolutly try
AdamC_2001 2025-01-01 06:15 p.m.
I'll let you know
Doogy 2025-01-01 07:58 p.m.
Friday at 5 would work for me but if not then we can do it next week at a different time.
DoogyFriday at 5 would work for me but if not then we can do it next week at a different time.
AdamC_2001 2025-01-03 04:04 p.m.
Can we do 5:30
Doogy 2025-01-03 04:44 p.m.
I actually can't today anymore. Next week please choose times from my availability (preferably not on Friday, it's seemingly unpredictable at the moment).
JaroCycle 2025-01-04 05:04 a.m.
How about next week on saturday or sunday(edited)
JaroCycle 2025-01-04 05:04 a.m.
5 PM
JaroCycle 2025-01-06 04:53 a.m.@Doogy @AdamC_2001
JaroCycle 2025-01-07 08:40 a.m.
Ekhm, @Doogy @AdamC_2001 this friday at 5 PM?
Doogy 2025-01-07 08:47 a.m.
Yes.
AdamC_2001 2025-01-07 01:46 p.m.
5:30
AdamC_2001 2025-01-07 01:46 p.m.
Maybe 6
AdamC_2001 2025-01-07 01:46 p.m.
Due to I leave work for 5
Doogy 2025-01-07 03:25 p.m.
Ok that works.
JaroCycle 2025-01-10 04:59 p.m.
I am not sure if I will be able to appear on 6 PM
JaroCycle 2025-01-10 04:59 p.m.
It's 1 am for me, and I gotta wake up sadly at 7 tomorrow
JaroCycle 2025-01-10 04:59 p.m.
Which is a bit of an issue
JaroCycle 2025-01-10 04:59 p.m.
But I will try
DoogyOk that works.
AdamC_2001 2025-01-10 06:30 p.m.
We able?
AdamC_2001 2025-01-10 06:34 p.m.
Yes or no…?
AdamC_2001 2025-01-10 06:34 p.m.@Doogy
Doogy 2025-01-10 07:01 p.m.
I would've been able to but it appears Jaro could not so
Doogy 2025-01-10 07:01 p.m.
back to rescheduling!
JaroCycle 2025-01-11 12:51 a.m.
Apologizes
AdamC_2001 2025-01-11 12:11 p.m.
I hope we can get to an agreement soon
JaroCycle 2025-01-12 05:29 a.m.
Likewise,
JaroCycle 2025-01-12 05:29 a.m.
Ideal times would be 5 PM or before 5 PM EST when that arraignment could happen
JaroCycle 2025-01-12 05:29 a.m.
6 is simply too late
JaroCycle 2025-01-12 05:29 a.m.@AdamC_2001 @Doogy
Doogy 2025-01-12 10:13 a.m.
Thursday 3pm ET
AdamC_2001 2025-01-12 12:47 p.m.
I can’t do 3…I don’t understand how many times I’ve said this I get out of work for 5pm est
AdamC_2001 2025-01-12 12:48 p.m.
I can’t do anything earlier then 5 unless it’s Sunday
JaroCycle 2025-01-13 07:23 a.m.
Can we do it continous on discord @Doogy
JaroCycle 2025-01-13 07:23 a.m.
Solves the issue really
JaroCycle 2025-01-13 07:23 a.m.
Unless we do it like this weekend at 3 for example
JaroCycle 2025-01-14 03:10 p.m.
So? @Doogy
Doogy 2025-01-14 03:12 p.m.
Looks like we might have to
Doogy 2025-01-14 03:13 p.m.
Actually, Adam is no longer the defense counsel on this case, obviously, in light of his appointment to magistrate
Doogy 2025-01-14 03:13 p.m.
Ill contact the PDO to assign a new PD and then we can proceed from there. Perhaps the new PD will have a schedule that pans out for us to not do it on discord.
JaroCycle 2025-01-14 04:48 p.m.
Very well
Deleted User 2025-01-14 05:46 p.m.@bob78711new Has been assigned, he is filing an NOA shortly. God Bless Clark
Doogy 2025-01-15 05:10 p.m.@bob78711new added.
Doogy 2025-01-15 05:11 p.m.
I'd suggest you review the case and work with the State's counsel to figure out a time within my availability posted in https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/1274202189317013571 to schedule for trial.
DoogyI'd suggest you review the case and work with the State's counsel to figure out a time within my availability posted in https://discord.com/channels/1274202187911790632/12742021893...
bob78711new 2025-01-15 05:12 p.m.
Alright thank you Your Honor.
JaroCycle 2025-01-16 08:02 a.m.@bob78711new Are you GMT?
JaroCyclebob78711new 2025-01-16 10:48 a.m.
PST
JaroCycle 2025-01-16 11:48 a.m.
Fuck,
JaroCycle 2025-01-16 11:48 a.m.
Your Honor considering the timezone diffrences I think it's best we do it over discord in a continuency format @Doogy
JaroCycleYour Honor considering the timezone diffrences I think it's best we do it over discord in a continuency format @Doogy
bob78711new 2025-01-16 03:41 p.m.
I agree
Doogy 2025-01-18 02:04 p.m.
Yeah 8 hours big difference. Okay, we’ll have to proceed on discord then unfortunately.
Doogy 2025-01-18 02:04 p.m.
Standby for further information.
JaroCycle 2025-01-19 03:47 p.m.@Doogy Your Honor, can we receive the instructions?
bob78711new 2025-01-19 04:30 p.m.
Courtesy link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SV3DtG1Ai6FlIm3Ngl8vZUdjy4didBX_/view?usp=sharing
Cc;@JaroCycle , @Doogy
Cc;
bob78711newCourtesy link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SV3DtG1Ai6FlIm3Ngl8vZUdjy4didBX_/view?usp=sharing Cc; @JaroCycle , @Doogy
JaroCycle 2025-01-19 04:38 p.m.
Interesting AI written motion,
JaroCycle 2025-01-19 04:39 p.m.
The state will deliver a response either tonight or tomorrow,
JaroCycleInteresting AI written motion,
bob78711new 2025-01-19 04:39 p.m.
as I said I use AI for reasearch not writing
JaroCycle 2025-01-19 04:43 p.m.
If you say so
JaroCycle 2025-01-20 12:54 p.m.
State's Response to Motion to Dismiss
CC:@bob78711new @Doogy
JaroCycle 2025-01-21 10:45 a.m.@Doogy Your Honor, when can we expect a ruling
Doogy 2025-01-22 10:37 a.m.
Perhaps today.
DoogyPerhaps today.
JaroCycle 2025-01-22 12:01 p.m.
That's great to hear
DoogyPerhaps today.
bob78711new 2025-01-22 03:12 p.m.
Absolutely lovely
Doogy 2025-01-23 11:54 a.m.
By today, I meant today.
DoogyBy today, I meant today.
JaroCycle 2025-01-23 11:58 a.m.
Fingers crossed
JaroCycle 2025-01-24 05:31 a.m.
Your Honor? @Doogy
Doogy 2025-01-24 08:48 a.m.
By today, really the whole time, I meant today.
DoogyBy today, really the whole time, I meant today.
JaroCycle 2025-01-24 10:50 a.m.
Hope so
JaroCycleHope so
bob78711new 2025-01-24 11:52 a.m.
all we can do is hope
JaroCycle 2025-01-24 02:32 p.m.@Doogy 
Doogy 2025-01-24 03:38 p.m.
Ruling posted. rulings @bob78711new @JaroCycle
JaroCycle 2025-01-24 03:39 p.m.
Thank you, Your Honor.
JaroCycle 2025-01-24 03:39 p.m.
Shall we proceed with continuence trial, then?
Doogy 2025-01-24 03:43 p.m.
Yes, please make sure that all witnesses submitted in discovery are within the server. @bob78711new @JaroCycle
Doogy 2025-01-24 03:43 p.m.
I'm not sure if the defense submitted any discovery, if they did, it was never filed onto the case card.
Doogy 2025-01-24 03:44 p.m.
Or perhaps they just had nothing to disclose.
Doogy 2025-01-24 03:44 p.m.
Either way, we will proceed with a discord trial, unfortunately, for this case.
Doogy 2025-01-24 03:44 p.m.
Naturally, this will consist of the typical procedure within a case trial involving opening statements, main arguments with presentation of evidence and witness testimony(with cross examination available) and closing statements.
Doogy 2025-01-24 03:45 p.m.
I ask of you both to maintain decorum within the proceedings while the trial is commenced within this channel.
Doogy 2025-01-24 03:45 p.m.
In addition, I ask of you both to ensure your witnesses do the same and that there is no speaking out of turn or abrupt interjections due to the format of the trial that we will be dealing with on discord.
DoogyEither way, we will proceed with a discord trial, unfortunately, for this case.
bob78711new 2025-01-24 03:51 p.m.
Your honor, my client is a missing person, I have not been able to contact him and he has left the main server.
bob78711new 2025-01-24 03:52 p.m.@JaroCycle
Doogy 2025-01-24 03:53 p.m.
He is present here, is he not? @nexus
DoogyHe is present here, is he not? @nexus
bob78711new 2025-01-24 04:08 p.m.
Yes, but I haven’t been able to make contact
JaroCycle 2025-01-24 04:33 p.m.
He is an active SWAT operator,
JaroCycle 2025-01-24 04:33 p.m.
In CCSO,
bob78711newYes, but I haven’t been able to make contact
JaroCycle 2025-01-24 04:34 p.m.
How so,
JaroCycleHe is an active SWAT operator,
JaroCycle 2025-01-24 04:34 p.m.
I mean deputy,
JaroCycleHow so,
bob78711new 2025-01-24 04:37 p.m.
He just has not responded to my messages
JaroCycle 2025-01-24 04:41 p.m.
Can we proceed in absentia?
Doogy 2025-01-25 10:27 a.m.
Alright, @nexus please respond promptly within the next 24 hours.
Doogy 2025-01-25 10:28 a.m.
If he does not, then I will move to an order to CCSO and his other employed positions to immediately suspend him, etc.
Doogy 2025-01-25 10:28 a.m.
Seeing as he technically should have been this entire time in accordance with statutory law.
DoogySeeing as he technically should have been this entire time in accordance with statutory law.
bob78711new 2025-01-26 12:07 a.m.
CCSO just made an announcement to their supervisors to get on top of patrol logs as people who have not patrolled in months were still employed so he may have slipped through
DoogyAlright, @nexus please respond promptly within the next 24 hours.
bob78711new 2025-01-26 02:42 p.m.
It’s been 24 hours
bob78711new 2025-01-27 01:58 p.m.
Day three of my client being missing
Doogy 2025-01-27 02:11 p.m.
Right. We will likely be able to proceed in absentia, I’ll still issue the order to LETI and CCSO to suspend him effective immediately though.
DoogyRight. We will likely be able to proceed in absentia, I’ll still issue the order to LETI and CCSO to suspend him effective immediately though.
bob78711new 2025-01-27 03:20 p.m.
Alright
DoogyRight. We will likely be able to proceed in absentia, I’ll still issue the order to LETI and CCSO to suspend him effective immediately though.
bob78711new 2025-01-28 03:21 p.m.
Has the order been issued?
Doogy 2025-01-28 03:22 p.m.
It appears he's already been inactive in SO either way.
DoogyIt appears he's already been inactive in SO either way.
bob78711new 2025-01-28 03:42 p.m.
Yeah but not suspended
Doogy 2025-01-28 08:34 p.m.
CCSO IA was notified and the defendant has been put on administrative leave during the tenure of this case.
bob78711new 2025-01-30 01:01 p.m.
Alright, we are ready to proceed
Doogy 2025-01-30 11:41 p.m.@Reapers added.
Doogy
Reapers 2025-01-30 11:43 p.m.
Has there been a ruling on the mtd? if so, what's the next step here?
Doogy 2025-01-30 11:43 p.m.
Out of curiosity what timezone are you in
Reapers 2025-01-30 11:43 p.m.
EST, why?
Doogy 2025-01-30 11:45 p.m.
Well we've been in scheduling limbo and were about to proceed with a discord trial but it would be more beneficial and efficient to have an in game trial if possible. The Defense counsel is in PST and therefore you may be able to accommodate more reasonable scheduling with the Defense for in game proceedings within my availability.
Reapers 2025-01-30 11:47 p.m.@bob78711new What are your availablities, sir? The judge and I's schedules are fairly similar so you can pretty much choose a time from the judge's schedule and it will likely work for me
bob78711new 2025-01-31 12:13 a.m.
I know for sure I will be available Sunday after 9 and before 12 EST
bob78711new 2025-01-31 12:13 a.m.
Saturday I may be out
bob78711new 2025-01-31 12:14 a.m.
Though I would prefer a discord trial
bob78711new 2025-01-31 12:14 a.m.
I can do in game on the weekend
bob78711newI know for sure I will be available Sunday after 9 and before 12 EST
Reapers 2025-01-31 12:25 a.m.@Doogy We could do 9PM sunday if that works for you?
Doogy 2025-01-31 12:30 a.m.
Yep that works
bob78711new 2025-01-31 12:12 p.m.@Doogy I can’t seem to find it, had the defendant entered a plea?
bob78711newDoogy 2025-01-31 12:23 p.m.
Doogybob78711new 2025-01-31 12:32 p.m.
Thank you.
Reapers 2025-02-01 09:35 p.m.@Doogy @bob78711new Wanna make sure trial is still on for tomorrow at 9PM EST
Reapersbob78711new 2025-02-01 09:41 p.m.
Yep
bob78711new 2025-02-01 09:41 p.m.
unless something comes up last min on my end
bob78711new 2025-02-01 09:41 p.m.
should be fine
Doogy 2025-02-01 09:43 p.m.
Yes
Reapers 2025-02-02 05:20 p.m.@Doogy @bob78711new I may need the trial to be postponed to 10:30 if none of you mind
Reapersbob78711new 2025-02-02 05:30 p.m.
I may be unavailable at that time
bob78711new 2025-02-02 05:30 p.m.
I will prob be more than likely not unavailable
bob78711new 2025-02-02 05:30 p.m.
I think it might be best if we move the trial to next weekend
bob78711new 2025-02-02 05:30 p.m.
as I have friday and mondy off
bob78711new 2025-02-02 05:30 p.m.
and a clear schedule
bob78711newI may be unavailable at that time
Reapers 2025-02-02 06:55 p.m.
Will you still be available at 9
ReapersWill you still be available at 9
bob78711new 2025-02-02 06:56 p.m.
9 EST not anymore
bob78711new 2025-02-02 06:56 p.m.
apologies
bob78711new 2025-02-02 06:57 p.m.
my schedule is very hectic today
Doogy 2025-02-02 09:00 p.m.
Alright...........................................
Doogy 2025-02-02 09:00 p.m.
propose a new date/time then please.
Doogypropose a new date/time then please.
Reapers 2025-02-02 09:09 p.m.@bob78711new Please choose a time of your convenience so that we do not delay this matter any longer
Reapersbob78711new 2025-02-02 09:12 p.m.
Next Friday, say 3 PM EST?
@Doogy @Reapers
bob78711newNext Friday, say 3 PM EST? @Doogy @Reapers
Reapers 2025-02-02 09:12 p.m.
Works for me
Doogy 2025-02-02 09:13 p.m.
Yep, that's fine.
Doogy 2025-02-02 09:13 p.m.Friday, February 7, 2025 at 3:00 p.m.
Doogy 2025-02-04 08:37 p.m.
I'm going to put this in the proceedings to let the record reflect that the defendant, who is currently suspended from their duties as a law enforcement officer, and is currently, to my knowledge, attempting to avoid these court proceedings, was seen online on-team earlier today.
DoogyI'm going to put this in the proceedings to let the record reflect that the defendant, who is currently suspended from their duties as a law enforcement officer, and is currently, ...
Reapers 2025-02-04 08:59 p.m.
Is his suspension related to this case or does it come from his higher ups? If it’s the former, the state can take care of it
ReapersIs his suspension related to this case or does it come from his higher ups? If it’s the former, the state can take care of it
Doogy 2025-02-04 09:02 p.m.
He is suspended because the Court notified CCSO IA in accordance with 4 M.S.C. 5 § 1601(c).
DoogyHe is suspended because the Court notified CCSO IA in accordance with 4 M.S.C. 5 § 1601(c).
Reapers 2025-02-04 09:06 p.m.
Will take care of it, thank you
DoogyHe is suspended because the Court notified CCSO IA in accordance with 4 M.S.C. 5 § 1601(c).
bob78711new 2025-02-05 10:33 a.m.
CCSO IA has notified me, they will be taking more action
Doogy 2025-02-06 08:32 p.m.
A writ of compliance has been issued regarding this case to enforce the statutory ineligibility of the Defendant to act as a peace officer due to documented proof of his violation of the suspension.
Doogy 2025-02-06 08:33 p.m.
Doogy 2025-02-06 08:33 p.m.
cc: @bob78711new @nexus @Reapers @Honoripedia @officerjordan10
Reapers 2025-02-07 02:04 p.m.@Doogy @bob78711new Ready?
Reapersbob78711new 2025-02-07 02:11 p.m.
yep
bob78711new 2025-02-07 02:11 p.m.
should be open and shut case
bob78711new 2025-02-07 02:16 p.m.
Court here or in game?
Reapers 2025-02-07 02:25 p.m.@Doogy Your honor?
bob78711new 2025-02-07 03:05 p.m.@Reapers It appears @Doogy is not online
Doogy 2025-02-07 04:40 p.m.
Apologies gentlemen, I was stuck at work for longer than anticipated. @bob78711new @Reapers
Doogy 2025-02-07 04:40 p.m.
Assuming it is too late now?
bob78711new 2025-02-07 04:40 p.m.
I am available for the moment
DoogyAssuming it is too late now?
Reapers 2025-02-07 04:45 p.m.
The witness appears to be unresponsive currently
Doogy 2025-02-07 04:46 p.m.
Ugh, alright, unfortunate circumstances then.
Doogy 2025-02-07 04:46 p.m.
I suppose we'll have to reschedule once more.
DoogyUgh, alright, unfortunate circumstances then.
Reapers 2025-02-07 04:46 p.m.
He did say he's gonna be available tonight after 10 or tomorrow at 3PM again
Reapers 2025-02-07 04:48 p.m.@Doogy He just responded
Reapers 2025-02-07 04:48 p.m.
He said he'll be available but only for 45mins
Doogy 2025-02-07 04:49 p.m.
That's probably not enough time. We could potentially get started and resume at a later time.
Doogy 2025-02-07 04:50 p.m.@bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-02-07 04:52 p.m.
yeah
bob78711new 2025-02-07 04:52 p.m.
that works
DoogyThat's probably not enough time. We could potentially get started and resume at a later time.
Reapers 2025-02-07 04:53 p.m.
He's asking if it's possible to get started and go into recess
Doogy 2025-02-07 04:55 p.m.
Yes.
Doogy 2025-02-07 04:55 p.m.
Ready?
Doogy 2025-02-07 04:55 p.m.@Reapers @bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-02-07 04:55 p.m.
in game or here
Doogy 2025-02-07 04:55 p.m.
in game
bob78711new 2025-02-07 04:56 p.m.
alright which server?
Doogy 2025-02-07 04:56 p.m.
second
bob78711new 2025-02-07 04:57 p.m.
joining
bob78711new 2025-02-07 04:57 p.m.
10th in que
Reapers 2025-02-07 04:57 p.m.@bob78711new @Doogy Let's do 3rd server
bob78711new 2025-02-07 04:57 p.m.
alr
Doogy 2025-02-07 04:57 p.m.
we'll probably get shot up
Doogy 2025-02-07 04:57 p.m.
but alright 3rd server
bob78711new 2025-02-07 04:58 p.m.
most people dont know where the new DC is so
Reapers 2025-02-07 04:58 p.m.
Nevermind it shut down
Reapers 2025-02-07 04:58 p.m.
Could we just have the trial on discord then?
bob78711new 2025-02-07 04:58 p.m.
it is making a new one
Reapers 2025-02-07 04:58 p.m.
Both servers have long lines
bob78711new 2025-02-07 04:59 p.m.
lets just do here
Doogy 2025-02-07 05:00 p.m.
join my server
Doogy 2025-02-07 05:00 p.m.
3rd server
bob78711new 2025-02-07 05:01 p.m. 
Doogy 2025-02-07 05:02 p.m.
Great...alright, we'll just reschedule. The one time Clarkers actually listen and join both servers to max capacity.
bob78711new 2025-02-07 05:02 p.m.
lol
DoogyGreat...alright, we'll just reschedule. The one time Clarkers actually listen and join both servers to max capacity.
Reapers 2025-02-07 05:03 p.m.
Discord trial?
Doogy 2025-02-07 05:04 p.m.
I'm not sure if there's some sort of unionWARE prevention of small servers
Doogy 2025-02-07 05:04 p.m.
but I've opened a 3rd server again.
bob78711new 2025-02-07 05:04 p.m.
I am in
Doogybut I've opened a 3rd server again.
Reapers 2025-02-07 05:06 p.m.
What location is trial gonna be at
Doogy 2025-02-07 05:06 p.m.
Lander DC
bob78711new 2025-02-07 05:08 p.m.
I think I disconected
bob78711new 2025-02-07 05:08 p.m.
rejoining
Doogy 2025-02-07 05:10 p.m.
second courtroom
bob78711newrejoining
Reapers 2025-02-07 05:11 p.m.
i'm at same place
Reapers 2025-02-07 05:12 p.m.
where are you?
Reapersi'm at same place
bob78711new 2025-02-07 05:14 p.m.
court
bob78711new 2025-02-07 05:14 p.m.
I though you drove
bob78711new 2025-02-07 05:14 p.m.
let me come get you
bob78711new 2025-02-07 05:15 p.m.
I am here
bob78711new 2025-02-07 05:15 p.m.
where are you @Reapers
Doogy 2025-02-07 05:19 p.m.
are you lost @Reapers
Doogy 2025-02-07 05:22 p.m.@Reapers 
Doogy 2025-02-07 05:26 p.m.
Alright whelp we've waited about 20-30 mins
Doogy 2025-02-07 05:27 p.m.
We're just going to have to reschedule. Please choose a new date/time within my availability.
Doogy 2025-02-07 05:27 p.m.@bob78711new @Reapers
DoogyWe're just going to have to reschedule. Please choose a new date/time within my availability.
Reapers 2025-02-07 05:39 p.m.
My apologies, an emergency came up
Reapers 2025-02-07 05:39 p.m.
I will consult the witness
Reapers 2025-02-07 05:46 p.m.@Doogy @bob78711new The witness and I are available tomorrow all day after 3PM EST
Reapersbob78711new 2025-02-07 05:46 p.m.
I wont be available untill late tomorrow
bob78711new 2025-02-07 05:49 p.m.
bob78711new 2025-02-07 05:49 p.m.@Reapers @Doogy
Reapers 2025-02-07 05:55 p.m.
I’m fairly certain that a ruling for an almost identical motion to this by the defense just come out like 2 weeks ago
Reapers 2025-02-08 12:11 a.m.@Doogy We haven’t decided a time yet for tomorrow, your honor(edited)
Doogy 2025-02-10 09:06 a.m.
Are you no longer the State’s counsel for this case? @Reapers
DoogyAre you no longer the State’s counsel for this case? @Reapers
Reapers 2025-02-10 11:33 a.m.
That is correct
bob78711new 2025-02-10 02:21 p.m.@Doogy This is just another example of my clients rights being violated. This is like the 4th prosecutor and we have not even gone to trial yet.
Doogy 2025-02-10 05:56 p.m.@actxrz added.
actxrz 2025-02-10 05:56 p.m.
here ill do a verbal noa
actxrz 2025-02-10 05:58 p.m.VERBAL NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
COMES NOW, actxrz, Assistant Attorney General of the Special Proceedings Division, Mayflower Department of Justice, and hereby provides notice to the Court and all parties that I am entering my appearance as prosecuting counsel of record in this matter, replacing MixedReaper, who has been removed from this case. It is requested that all motions, notices, correspondence, orders, and other filings regarding this case be served to actxrz via Discord
Respectfully submitted,
actxrz
Assistant Attorney General
Special Proceedings Division
Mayflower Department of Justice
572 Main St., NW., Rm. 2101
Lander, MF 11023
actxrz@mdoj.gov
COMES NOW, actxrz, Assistant Attorney General of the Special Proceedings Division, Mayflower Department of Justice, and hereby provides notice to the Court and all parties that I am entering my appearance as prosecuting counsel of record in this matter, replacing MixedReaper, who has been removed from this case. It is requested that all motions, notices, correspondence, orders, and other filings regarding this case be served to actxrz via Discord
Respectfully submitted,
Assistant Attorney General
Special Proceedings Division
Mayflower Department of Justice
572 Main St., NW., Rm. 2101
Lander, MF 11023
actxrz@mdoj.gov
Doogy 2025-02-10 05:58 p.m.
i already filed your thing
actxrz 2025-02-10 05:58 p.m.
ok
actxrz 2025-02-10 05:58 p.m.
well theres that too
Doogy 2025-02-10 05:58 p.m.
i don't add ppl to channels w/o a valid noa
Doogy 2025-02-10 05:58 p.m.
next time follow the doc naming format though
actxrz 2025-02-10 05:58 p.m.
got it
bob78711newactxrz 2025-02-10 06:01 p.m.
okay, first of all........ the assignment of prosecutors is an internal administrative matter within the department of justice. there is no constitutional or statutory requirement that a single prosecutor remain on a case from start to finish. the government retains discretion in the assignment of prosecutors, and changes in prosecutors do not, by themselves, constitute a due process violation.
actxrz 2025-02-10 06:03 p.m.
second of all, the defendant must demonstrate actual prejudice resulting from the change of prosecutors. merely alleging multiple changes in the prosecutor, without showing how such changes have impaired the defense, is insufficient to establish a violation of speedy trial or due process..(edited)
bob78711newactxrz 2025-02-10 06:05 p.m.@Doogy @bob78711new has the state responded to this yet? if not, i'd like at least three days to draft a response.
actxrzbob78711new 2025-02-10 06:14 p.m.
no
actxrz 2025-02-10 06:15 p.m.
no to the the three days or to the state's response being submitted?
bob78711new 2025-02-10 06:15 p.m.
State has not responded.
actxrz 2025-02-10 06:18 p.m.
ok
actxrz 2025-02-10 08:08 p.m.
nvm i dont need 3 days
actxrz 2025-02-10 08:56 p.m.
actxrz 2025-02-10 08:56 p.m.@bob78711new @Doogy
actxrz 2025-02-11 09:10 p.m.@Doogy when can we expect a ruling?
Deleted User 2025-02-12 12:49 p.m.
How many prosecutors this thing gone through?
Doogy 2025-02-12 01:51 p.m.
Motion to dismiss is denied sua sponte . Not going to write a ruling because it's nearly the same as the previous one. @actxrz @bob78711new
Deleted UserHow many prosecutors this thing gone through?
bob78711new 2025-02-12 01:52 p.m.
like 6
Doogy 2025-02-12 02:31 p.m.
Schedule a valid trial date/time by Saturday, February 22, 2025 at 10:00 p.m. or this matter will be dismissed for want of prosecution.
Doogy 2025-02-12 02:31 p.m.@bob78711new @actxrz
actxrz 2025-02-12 11:26 p.m.@bob78711new when are you available
actxrz 2025-02-12 11:27 p.m.
im off from school friday to monday
actxrz 2025-02-12 11:27 p.m.
im not available tmr nihjt im going out w my friends
actxrz 2025-02-12 11:27 p.m.
saturday morning im working till 2
bob78711new 2025-02-12 11:27 p.m.
Will prob be available this weekend.
actxrz 2025-02-12 11:27 p.m.
kk
actxrz 2025-02-12 11:28 p.m.
im not available friday night either
actxrz 2025-02-12 11:30 p.m.
so saturday between 4-7, sunday all day maybe, and monday
actxrz 2025-02-13 06:45 p.m.@bob78711new hello i need a time and a day
actxrzbob78711new 2025-02-13 06:57 p.m.
Sunday at 3 EST?
actxrz 2025-02-13 08:04 p.m.
sure
actxrz 2025-02-13 11:01 p.m.@Doogy
Doogy 2025-02-13 11:06 p.m.
That's not within my availability, hence the "valid date/time" in my statement.
actxrz 2025-02-13 11:22 p.m.@bob78711new ok i can do tomorrow anytime before 4pm
actxrzbob78711new 2025-02-14 12:27 a.m.
I am not available tomorrow
actxrz 2025-02-14 03:39 p.m.
erm
actxrz 2025-02-14 03:39 p.m.@bob78711new sunday 9:05 pm est(edited)
actxrzbob78711new 2025-02-14 03:40 p.m.
I should be available then
bob78711new 2025-02-14 03:40 p.m.
I just found out I am available on Saturday now
bob78711new 2025-02-14 03:40 p.m.
So we can also do then
bob78711new 2025-02-14 03:40 p.m.
My plans got canceled
actxrz 2025-02-14 03:41 p.m.@Doogy saturday or sunday 9:05 pm est
Doogy 2025-02-14 03:42 p.m.
Either works.
actxrz 2025-02-14 04:15 p.m.
ok we can do saturday
actxrz 2025-02-15 04:42 p.m.@bob78711new @Doogy 9:05 pm est guys who's excited!!!!
actxrz 2025-02-15 04:42 p.m.@nexus
actxrzbob78711new 2025-02-15 04:43 p.m.
he is dead
bob78711new 2025-02-15 05:17 p.m.@Doogy Would it be permissable for us to enter into a plea deal?
bob78711new 2025-02-15 05:17 p.m.
I am not sure about the courts rules on plea deals when being tried in absentia
bob78711new 2025-02-15 05:19 p.m.
NVM
Doogy 2025-02-15 05:31 p.m.
Nope
bob78711new 2025-02-15 08:24 p.m.
we doing court in the server me and act both are in or in another one
actxrz 2025-02-15 08:26 p.m.
first trial in 4 months
actxrz 2025-02-15 08:26 p.m.
who's excited
actxrzwho's excited
bob78711new 2025-02-15 08:26 p.m.
dont expect much
bob78711new 2025-02-15 08:27 p.m.
this should be quick
Doogy 2025-02-15 08:56 p.m.
what server is that
actxrz 2025-02-15 09:00 p.m.@Doogy @bob78711new we may need to reschedule for tomorrow at 10 pm eastern
actxrz 2025-02-15 09:01 p.m.
one of the state's witnesses are unavailable until tomorrow
actxrz 2025-02-15 09:01 p.m.
and the other is not available at 9 eastern
actxrz 2025-02-15 09:01 p.m.
and my internet is a little spotty due to heavy winds and snow storm
Doogy 2025-02-15 09:01 p.m.
Let's at least meet for opening statements and then we can adjourn until tomorrow.
actxrz 2025-02-15 09:01 p.m.
alright we can do that
actxrz 2025-02-15 09:01 p.m.
which server
Doogy 2025-02-15 09:01 p.m.
Are you guys already in game?
actxrz 2025-02-15 09:02 p.m.
i left a half hour ago i can rejoin rn
Doogy 2025-02-15 09:02 p.m.
alright in that case the second server
Doogy 2025-02-15 09:02 p.m.@bob78711new
bob78711new 2025-02-15 09:03 p.m.
enroute
Doogy 2025-02-15 09:05 p.m.
lander district court
Doogy 2025-02-15 09:07 p.m.
courtroom 2
actxrz 2025-02-15 09:13 p.m.
omw
Doogy 2025-02-15 09:28 p.m.
Just for the record, opening statements have been made by both parties in trial at the Lander District Courthouse as of this date. The Court plans to reconvene tomorrow at 10 PM ET for further proceedings.
actxrz 2025-02-16 07:04 p.m.@Doogy @bob78711new mind if we do todays session on discord
actxrz 2025-02-16 07:05 p.m.
one of our witnesses will be asleep and the other may or may not be at dinner
actxrzbob78711new 2025-02-16 07:10 p.m.
I may not be able to make todays session
bob78711new 2025-02-16 07:10 p.m.
family stuff
actxrz 2025-02-16 09:45 p.m.
alr
actxrz 2025-02-16 09:45 p.m.
we js need to discuss a time you, me, the judge, and the states first witness are available
Doogy 2025-02-16 09:46 p.m.
Yep
actxrz 2025-02-16 09:50 p.m.@Doogy do u wanna add the first witness so its easier for us to discuss
actxrz 2025-02-16 10:03 p.m.@bob78711new ?
actxrz 2025-02-16 10:08 p.m.
ig not today
actxrzig not today
bob78711new 2025-02-16 11:54 p.m.
yeah sorry family stuff came up
actxrz 2025-02-16 11:55 p.m.
its all g i understand
actxrzwe js need to discuss a time you, me, the judge, and the states first witness are available
actxrz 2025-02-16 11:55 p.m.
^
actxrzwe js need to discuss a time you, me, the judge, and the states first witness are available
bob78711new 2025-02-17 01:34 p.m.
Imma be honest discord might be better
Doogy 2025-02-19 06:18 p.m.
So what's it looking like gents?
actxrz 2025-02-19 07:25 p.m.
can we add the witness
actxrz 2025-02-19 07:25 p.m.
so we can all discuss a time and date together
actxrz 2025-02-19 07:25 p.m.@Jedi
Doogy 2025-02-19 09:09 p.m.
added
Jedi 2025-02-20 03:00 a.m.
Hi
Jedi 2025-02-20 03:01 a.m.
I am free tomorrow evening, and most of the day on Friday.
Jedi 2025-02-20 03:01 a.m.
So I am pretty flexible with regards to timing.
Jedi 2025-02-20 03:02 a.m.
That said I would like to get this matter over and done with sooner rather than later, considering how long it has already been.
Jedi 2025-02-20 03:02 a.m.
Although I understand it is hard to coordinate everyone's schedule, so please let me know what times work best for you guys; and I can see if they fit into my schedule although overall my schedule is pretty open from tomorrow afternoon all through this weekend.
Jedi 2025-02-20 04:18 p.m.@bob78711new @actxrz Would this evening work?
Jedi 2025-02-20 04:18 p.m.
Since it’s within the judges availability
Jedibob78711new 2025-02-20 04:20 p.m.
I am not available this evening
bob78711new 2025-02-20 04:20 p.m.
Ideally we would do this sometime on the weekend
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-02-20 04:40 p.m.
you guys suck at scheduling
krabzatonin ᴏᴍ 2025-02-20 04:41 p.m.
look at <#1342249769178763304>
Jedi 2025-02-20 04:47 p.m.
There’s a scheduling channel now
Jedi 2025-02-20 04:47 p.m.
Oh my
Jedi 2025-02-20 04:47 p.m.
Lemme go fill it out
bob78711newIdeally we would do this sometime on the weekend
Jedi 2025-02-20 04:51 p.m.
Alright I filled out the thing
Jedi 2025-02-20 04:52 p.m.
But looks like you and I are both available most of the day Saturday
Jedi 2025-02-20 04:52 p.m.
So if it works for @Doogy & @actxrz then we could do Saturday evening
krabzatonin ᴏᴍyou guys suck at scheduling
Doogy 2025-02-20 04:54 p.m.
real
actxrz 2025-02-22 01:07 a.m.
wtw!!
actxrzwtw!!
Jedi 2025-02-22 02:28 a.m.
u free tomorrow evening??
Jedi 2025-02-22 02:28 a.m.
Judge, defense, and I are available then
Jedi 2025-02-22 02:29 a.m.
see <#1342249769178763304> for our schedule that krabz made
Jediu free tomorrow evening??
actxrz 2025-02-22 02:30 a.m.
yes
actxrz 2025-02-22 02:30 a.m.
i think so
actxrzyes
Jedi 2025-02-22 02:57 a.m.@Doogy I think we may have found a time.
Jedi 2025-02-22 02:57 a.m.
Since it appears all parties are available tomorrow evening.
Doogy 2025-02-22 09:26 a.m.
Ok. Trial scheduled for Sunday, February 23, 2025 at 9:00 p.m. .
@actxrz @bob78711new @Jedi
Jedi 2025-02-22 01:54 p.m.
Sounds good.
Jedi 2025-02-23 04:21 p.m.
We still on for trial?
Jedi 2025-02-23 04:22 p.m.
Ill presume so unless someone says otherwise
actxrz 2025-02-23 08:29 p.m.
actxrz 2025-02-23 08:30 p.m.
Trail vc? 
actxrz 2025-02-23 08:30 p.m.
Trial
actxrz 2025-02-23 08:30 p.m.@Doogy @Jedi @bob78711new
actxrz 2025-02-23 08:30 p.m.
vc trial so fun!
actxrzClick to see attachment.
bob78711new 2025-02-23 08:42 p.m.
actxrzJedi 2025-02-23 08:45 p.m.
I thought it was a game trial????
actxrzClick to see attachment.
Jedi 2025-02-23 08:46 p.m.
Sounding like a Kanye Super Bowl ad
JediI thought it was a game trial????
actxrz 2025-02-23 08:46 p.m.
ya but like vc trials r sm more fun
actxrz 2025-02-23 08:47 p.m.
its not like we gotta substitute in-game trial with a vc trial we can js do both
actxrz 2025-02-23 08:47 p.m.
since in-game trials are recorded anyways
Doogy 2025-02-23 08:58 p.m.
Everyone still good for this time?
Jedi 2025-02-23 08:59 p.m.
Yes
Jedi 2025-02-23 08:59 p.m.@Doogy Where should we meet?
Doogy 2025-02-23 09:00 p.m.
second server lander courthouse
Jedi 2025-02-23 09:00 p.m.
Alright
Jedi 2025-02-23 09:00 p.m.
ill head there now
Jedi 2025-02-23 09:00 p.m.
The server is nearly full
Jedi 2025-02-23 09:00 p.m.
But it has 3 open slots currently
actxrz 2025-02-23 09:00 p.m.
vc!!
Doogy 2025-02-23 09:00 p.m.
no
actxrz 2025-02-23 09:00 p.m.
Doogy 2025-02-23 09:00 p.m.@actxrz @bob78711new
Doogy 2025-02-23 09:01 p.m.
second server
Doogy 2025-02-23 09:01 p.m.
lander courthouse
actxrz 2025-02-23 09:01 p.m.
ok
Jedi 2025-02-23 09:09 p.m.@bob78711new Us 3 are here.
Doogy 2025-02-23 09:11 p.m.@bob78711new are you coming
Doogy 2025-02-23 09:17 p.m.@bob78711new
actxrz 2025-02-23 09:19 p.m.
ig u could say i scared him away
Jedi 2025-02-23 09:23 p.m.@bob78711new hello bob
Doogy 2025-02-23 09:23 p.m.@bob78711new
Doogy 2025-02-23 09:23 p.m.@bob78711new
Doogy 2025-02-23 09:23 p.m.@bob78711new
Doogy 2025-02-23 09:23 p.m.@bob78711new
actxrz 2025-02-23 09:23 p.m.@bob78711new dude dont show up
actxrz 2025-02-23 09:23 p.m.
i dont have questions prepared i forgot
actxrz 2025-02-23 09:24 p.m.
Deaduzz....
Doogy 2025-02-23 09:26 p.m.
Alright
Doogy 2025-02-23 09:26 p.m.
looks like we'll reschedule
Doogy 2025-02-23 09:26 p.m.
I guess..................
Jedi 2025-02-23 09:31 p.m.@Doogy @actxrz Would same time tomorrow work?
actxrz 2025-02-23 09:32 p.m.
probably not
actxrz 2025-02-23 09:32 p.m.
and my schedule is extremely tight in the month of march
actxrz 2025-02-23 09:33 p.m.
i prolly wont be available that much so if we do have to reschedule till then
actxrz 2025-02-23 09:33 p.m.
ill have another prosecutor finish this out
bob78711new 2025-02-23 10:29 p.m.
My b chat
bob78711new 2025-02-23 10:29 p.m.
Family stuff came up
bob78711new 2025-02-23 10:29 p.m.
Can we do this asynchronous over discord
Jedi 2025-02-23 11:37 p.m.@Doogy ^ ?
Jedi 2025-02-23 11:38 p.m.
I mean I personally had wanted to do it in game
Jedi 2025-02-23 11:38 p.m.
but at this point
Jedi 2025-02-23 11:38 p.m.
I think maybe we should consider discord,
Jedi 2025-02-23 11:38 p.m.
since we have re-scheduled this how many times now?
Jedi 2025-02-26 03:33 a.m.
Hi
Jedi 2025-02-26 03:33 a.m.
Trial soon?
Doogy 2025-03-06 02:30 p.m.
Alright lads so like what are we doing here?
Doogy 2025-03-06 02:30 p.m.
Is this want of prosecution? Nolle? Or are you guys ever going to speak in here to schedule further trial dates?
DoogyIs this want of prosecution? Nolle? Or are you guys ever going to speak in here to schedule further trial dates?
Jedi 2025-03-06 05:23 p.m.
Maybe we should do a discord trial
Jedi 2025-03-06 05:23 p.m.
Cuz it seems every single time we try and do in game someone doesn’t show
Jedi 2025-03-06 05:24 p.m.
Before it was the prosecution, then lately the defense that’s failed to show
Jedi 2025-03-06 05:25 p.m.@bob78711new @actxrz would you guys be open to a discord trial if the judge is willing? I think at this point it may be the best way to just get this case over and done with
DoogyIs this want of prosecution? Nolle? Or are you guys ever going to speak in here to schedule further trial dates?
bob78711new 2025-03-06 05:30 p.m.
I have been waiting for act to get back to the messages I have sent here
DoogyIs this want of prosecution? Nolle? Or are you guys ever going to speak in here to schedule further trial dates?
bob78711new 2025-03-06 05:30 p.m.
If there is no response by him I’d say want of prosecution
bob78711newI have been waiting for act to get back to the messages I have sent here
actxrz 2025-03-06 05:33 p.m.
what messages
actxrz 2025-03-06 05:34 p.m.
you agreed to a time and date and failed to appear
bob78711newCan we do this asynchronous over discord
bob78711new 2025-03-06 05:34 p.m.
I asked a question
actxrz 2025-03-06 05:35 p.m.
you seem to have things going on so we are waiting on you to offer a time and date
actxrz 2025-03-06 05:35 p.m.
that aint up to me
bob78711new 2025-03-06 05:35 p.m.
I have been waiting for a response for ages
actxrz 2025-03-06 05:35 p.m.
so PLEASEEE do not tell me you wanna try and dismiss this for want of prosecution when you cant appear
bob78711new 2025-03-06 05:35 p.m.@Doogy
actxrz 2025-03-06 05:36 p.m.
weve all offered a time and date and the only person having problems w scheduling is you
actxrz 2025-03-06 05:36 p.m.
so go ahead and suggest a time and date
Jedi 2025-03-06 07:17 p.m.
Act’s not wrong that last time we tried to do trial it the defense that’s didn’t show
Jedi 2025-03-06 07:18 p.m.
So I think that complicated anyone saying want of prosecution, when it’s most recently not the prosecution that hasn’t shown up to court.
Jedi 2025-03-06 07:19 p.m.
I’m willing to appear either in game or on discord, but I’d like both parties to actually show up, as quite frankly I’m a bit tired of the fact that we keep showing up to court and then other people never appear
Jedi 2025-03-07 01:15 a.m.@actxrz @bob78711new I’ll make myself the scheduler here
Jedi 2025-03-07 01:15 a.m.
Is there anytime this weekend within the judges availability that works for both of you?
Jedibob78711new 2025-03-07 01:23 a.m.
Jediactxrz 2025-03-07 01:54 a.m.
its okay dw abt it loo
actxrz 2025-03-07 01:54 a.m.
he doesnt wanna go to trial cuz he know he gonna lose so he tryna drag ts out till the judge dismisses it
actxrzits okay dw abt it loo
Jedi 2025-03-07 04:10 a.m.
Well we should at least suggest a time
actxrz 2025-03-07 10:14 a.m.@bob78711new gonna suggest a time ur available or u js gonna drag this on?(edited)
actxrzbob78711new 2025-03-07 05:28 p.m.
I’d like to do this asynchronously but any time before 4:30 PM PST
bob78711new 2025-03-07 05:28 p.m.
Or 7 EST
actxrz 2025-03-07 05:30 p.m.
bro what
actxrz 2025-03-07 05:30 p.m.
2 diff timezones
actxrz 2025-03-07 05:30 p.m.
u give me a headache bro
Jedi 2025-03-07 06:16 p.m.
I’m fine doing it asynchronous
Jedi 2025-03-07 06:16 p.m.
But it does seem the judge has a preference for an in game live trial
Jedi 2025-03-07 06:16 p.m.
So I think we obviously need to adhere to the judges preference
actxrz 2025-03-09 12:18 a.m.
^^
actxrz 2025-03-09 04:06 p.m.@bob78711new @Doogy i have submit my 3-day notice for resignation to the dept of justice
actxrz 2025-03-09 04:07 p.m.
will find replacing prosecutor
actxrzu give me a headache bro
bob78711new 2025-03-09 04:10 p.m.
thats the same time
bob78711new 2025-03-09 04:10 p.m.
...
actxrz 2025-03-10 09:18 p.m.
verbal motion to withdraw as counsel of record
ive resigned from the justice department. i am no longer an employee of the justice department.@dero , the aag of pio, has been made aware of this case
ive resigned from the justice department. i am no longer an employee of the justice department.
Doogy 2025-03-20 08:00 p.m.
Ok well, there doesn't appear to be any effort from the DoJ to appoint a new attorney to handle this case.
Doogy 2025-03-20 08:00 p.m.
Therefore, this case is hereby dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution.
Doogy 2025-03-20 08:00 p.m.@bob78711new @nexus
Exported 1487 messages